(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "San Francisco southern waterfront draft supplemental environmental impact report"

San Francisco Planning Department 



SAN FRANCISCO 
SOUTHERN WATERFRONT 

Draft Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Report 

Planning Department Case No. 1999.377E 
State Clearinghouse No. 94123007 

Draft SEIR Publication Date: September 23, 2000 
Draft SEIR Public Hearing Date: October 26, 2000 
Draft SEIR Public Comment Period: September 23 to November 7, 2000 



Comments should he sent to: 

Environmental Review Officer 
1660 Mission Street, Suite 500 
San Francisco, CA 94103 





SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REFERENCE 
BOOK 

Nol /() he Idkcn Jroiii I he Lihnuy 



FEB - 8 atltl 




SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3 1223 05683 6167 

City and County of San Francisco 1660 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103-2414 



(415) 558-6378 



PLANNING COMMISSION 
FAX: 558-6409 



ADMINISTRATION 
FAX: 558-6426 



CURRENT PLANNING/ZONING LONG RANGE PLANNING 
FAX: 558-6409 FAX: 558-6426 



DATE: September 23, 2000 

TO: Distribution List for the Southern Waterfront Supplemental Draft EIR 

FROM: Hillary Gitelman, Envu-onmental Review Officer 

SUBJECT: Request for the Final Supplemental Environmental hnpact Report for the Southern 
Waterfront Project (Case No. 1999.377E) 



This is the Draft of the Supplemental Envirormiental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Southern Waterfront 
Project. A public hearing will be held on the adequacy and accuracy of this document. After the public 
hearing, our office will prepare and publish a document titled "Summary of Comments and Responses" 
which will contain a summary of all relevant comments on this Draft SEIR and our responses to those 
comments, and may also specify changes to this Draft SEIR. Public agencies and members of the public 
who testify at the hearing on the Draft SEIR will automatically receive a copy of the Comments and 
Responses document, along with notice of the date reserved for certification of the SEIR by the Planning 
Commission; others may receive such copies and notice on request or by visiting our office. This Draft 
SEIR together with the Summary of Comments and Responses document will be considered by the 
Planning Commission in an advertised public meeting and certified as a Final SEIR if deemed adequate. 

After certification, we will modify the Draft SEIR as specified by the Comments and Responses 
document and print both documents in a single publication called the Final Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Report. The Final SEIR will add no new information to the combination of the two documents 
except to reproduce the certification resolution. It will simply provide the information in one document 
rather than two documents. Therefore, if you receive a copy of the Comments and Responses document 
in addition to this copy of the Draft SEIR, you will technically have a copy of the Final SEIR. 

We are aware that many people who receive the Draft SEIR and Summary of Comments and Responses 
have no interest in receiving virtually the same information after the SEIR has been certified. To avoid 
expending money and paper needlessly, we would like to send copies of the Final EIR to private 
individuals only if they request them. If you would like a copy of the Final SEIR. therefore, please fill 
out and mail the postcard provided inside the back cover to the Major Environmental Analysis Office of 
the Planning Department within two weeks after certification of the SEIR. Any private party not 
requesting a Final SEIR by that time will not be mailed a copy. 



Thank you for your interest in this project. 



San Francisco Planning Department 



SAN FRANCISCO 
SOUTHERN WATERFRONT 

Draft Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Report 



Planning Department Case No. 1999. 3 77E 
State Clearinghouse No. 94123007 



Draft SEIR Publication Date: September 23, 2000 
Draft SEIR Public Hearing Date: October 26, 2000 
Draft SEIR Public Comment Period: September 23 to November 7, 2000 



Comments should be sent to: 

Environmental Review Officer 
1660 Mission Street, Suite 500 
San Francisco, CA 94103 



This report has been primed on post-consumer recycled paper/ESA 990267 



3 1223 05683 6167 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SOUTHERN WATERFRONT PROJECT 

DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 

Page 

INTRODUCTION iv 

I. SUMMARY S-1 

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 

A. Site Location 1 

B. Project Sponsor's Objectives 1 

C. Project Characteristics and Approval Requirements 4 

III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 25 

A. Land Use 25 

B. Transportation 44 

C. Air Quality 63 

D. Hydrology and Water Quality 99 

E. Hazardous Materials 1 14 

F. Biological Resources 136 

G. Growth Inducement 141 

IV. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE 143 

THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT 

V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE 165 
AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 

VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 167 

A. No Project 168 

B. Reduced-Scale Alternative 169 

C. Residential Use Future Scenario 172 

VII. DRAFT SEIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 175 
VIII. APPENDICES 
IX. EIR AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS 



Case No. 1999.377E 



ii 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



INTRODUCTION 



Page 

LIST OF FIGURES 

1. Project Location 2 

2. Project Components 8 

3. Existing and Proposed Freight Rail Routes 21 

4. Generalized Map of Existing Land Uses 26 

5. Intersection Levels of Service 55 

6. Annual Wind Rose, Potrero Power Plant ( 1 99 1 - 1 992) 65 

7. Sensitive Receptors 92 

LIST OF TABLES 

1. Project Characteristics 6 

2. Phase I Project Trip Generation (2003) 50 

3. Phase n Project Trip Generation (2015) 5 1 

4. Traffic Level Of Service Results 53 

5. Phase II Project Transit Trip Generation (2015) 59 

6. Phase II Parking Demand and Requirement (2015) 61 

7. State and National Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources ' 66 

8. Summary of Local Monitoring Data for the Arkansas Street 74 

and Ellis Street Stations, 1995-1999 

9. Summary of Regional Monitoring Data for the San Francisco 75 

Bay Area Air Basin, 1995-1999 

10. San Francisco, Arkansas Street Station, Toxic Air Contaminant Concentrations, 1994-1998 76 

11. Estimated Net Change in Regional Pollutant Emissions, 2003 and 2015 84 

12. Estimated Net Change in Daily Regional Pollutant Emissions by Project Component, 2003 85 

13. Estimated Net Change in Annual Regional Pollutant Emissions by Project Component, 2003 86 

14. Estimated Net Change in Daily Regional Pollutant Emissions by Project Component, 2015 87 

15. Estimated Net Change in Annual Regional Pollutant Emissions by Project Component, 2015 88 

16. Estimated Carbon Monoxide Concentrations at Selected Intersections in Project Vicinity 90 

17. Maximum PM- 10 Concentrations at Sensitive Receptors 94 

18. Maximum Diesel Particulate Concentrations and Risk at Sensitive Receptors 95 

19. Estimated Change in Impervious Surface due to Project Components 107 

20. Changes in Stormwater Flow and Combined Sewer Overflows 110 

21. Summary of Potential Hazardous Materials Site Conditions 120 

at Industry Group Project Sites 

22. Summary of Potential Hazardous Materials Site Conditions 124 

at Future Port Development Sites 

23. Mitigation Measures For Intersection Levels of Service 144 

24. Traffic Levels of Service for Alternative B 171 

25. Traffic Levels of Service for Alternative C 174 



Case No. 1999.377E 



iii 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



INTRODUCTION 



On January 9, 1997, the San Francisco Planning Commission certified a Final EIR, Port of 
San Francisco Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR (Case No. 94.155E; State Clearinghouse No. 94123007), 
for the adoption by the Port of San Francisco of a plan governing future uses and development within the 
Port's approximately 7.5 miles of jurisdiction, covering the San Francisco waterfront generally from the 
Hyde Street Pier to India Basin. That FEIR is referred to herein as the "Waterfront Plan FEIR." 

Subsequent to completion of the Waterfront Plan FEIR, the San Francisco Port Commission in June 1997 
adopted the Waterfront Land Use Plan ("the Waterfront Plan"), which specifies acceptable and 
unacceptable land uses for all properties under Port jurisdiction, and is intended to guide future 
development of Port properties and to satisfy requirements of Proposition H, passed in November 1990. 
The Waterfront Plan allows for new development on Port property, with a mixture of maritime and 
commercial uses anticipated generally north of China Basin and predominantly maritime expansion from 
Pier 70 south, in the subarea known as the Southern Waterfront. Short-term, "interim" uses are also 
allowed that do not preclude the ultimate reuse of land on the Southern Waterfront for maritime 
purposes. The Waterfront Plan identified a number of "mixed-use opportunity areas" that were 
anticipated to be the location of future developments including maritime uses, open space, public access, 
and certain commercial and recreational uses, potentially in close proximity to other nearby uses on non- 
Port property. Three of these opportunity areas are located within the Southern Waterfront - at Pier 70; 
at the former Western Pacific rail yard between 25th and Cesar Chavez (Army) Streets, east of Illinois 
Street; and northeast of Cargo Way in the "backlands" west (inland) of the South Container Terminal at 
Piers 94-96. 

Since publication of the Waterfront Plan EIR, the Port has received inquiries from a number of potential 
maritime-industrial and general industrial users seeking to lease land within Port jurisdiction in the 
Southern Waterfront. Upon preliminary review of the lease applications, Port staff, in consultation with 
Planning Department staff, determined that, while the proposed uses would be consistent with the 
Waterfront Plan direction for the Southern Waterfront, the Waterfront Plan FEIR did not analyze such 
uses. Beyond these projects, collectively described in this SEIR as the Industry Group project 
components, the Port itself has proposed construction of a rail and truck bridge over Islais Creek at 
Illinois Sfreet to provide access to and between the North and South Container Terminals at Pier 80 and 
Piers 94-96, respectively. Additionally, the Port anticipates future growth in cargo shipping activity at 
Pier 80 and Piers 94-96, as well as potential future development of maritime and non-maritime activities 
on the three opportunity areas noted above. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



iv 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



INTRODUCTION 



In addition, since certification of the Waterfront Plan EIR, there have been changes in the regulatory 
environment with respect to air quality, in that the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin first achieved, and 
then lost, "attainment" status for the national ozone standard, and achieved attainment status for the state 
and national carbon monoxide standards; the Bay Area remains in "non-attainment" status for the state 
ozone and PM-10 standards, meaning that the Bay Area violates these state standards with some 
regularity. In addition, in 1998, the California Air Resources Board designated particulate emissions 
from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant, resulting in increased concern regarding diesel 
emissions. 

In light of the above, this Supplemental EIR (SEIR) has been prepared to analyze potential transportation 
and air quality effects related to the Industry Group project components, the proposed Illinois Street 
Intermodal Bridge, and potential future increases in cargo shipping and development in the mixed-use 
opportunity areas. Note, however, that no changes are proposed in the Waterfront Plan to accommodate 
the Industry Group components or the Illinois Street bridge. 

In addition to transportation and air quality, this SEIR includes a discussion of land use, plans, and 
policies, and analyzes effects related to runoff and water quality that could result from development of 
the Industry Group and opportunity area sites, and effects on biological resources that could result from 
construction of the Islais Creek bridge. Finally, this SEIR reviews and updates the Waterfront Plan 
FEIR's analysis of potential effects related to hazardous materials and site contamination. Effects for 
topics other than those iterated above would not be expected to differ substantively from those analyzed 
in the Waterfront Plan FEIR, and no new analysis is required. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



V 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



CHAPTER I 



SUMMARY 



A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (p 1) 

This SEIR analyzes a series of development proposals - the "Industry Grroup" project components - in 
the portion of the Port of San jPrancisco jurisdiction known as the Southern Waterfront (generally, 
Pier 70 south to India Basin and east of Illinois Street) . This SEIR also analyzes a Port-sponsored 
proposal to construct a rail and truck bridge across Islais Creek to improve access between the Port's 
major maritime terminals. Finally, this SEIR evaluates, at a lesser level of detail, potential future 
development on other Port.lands in the Southern Waterfront to provide a conservative SEIR analysis, 
although there are no' such proposed projects at this, time. 

INDUSTRY GROUP COMPONENTS 

Six private entities (one combining two separate companies, or seven operators in total) have proposed 
leasing portions of the Port of San Francisco's Southerii Waterfront area and implementing development 
proposals, primarily related to the construction industry. Each of these Industry Group project 
components would involve a project sponsor leasing property from the Port and making improvements 
on the leased site. In most cases, the lease would involve unimproved land that the sponsor would 
develop. In some cases, the individual sponsors would occupy one or more existing buildings on Port 
property with lease provisions for tenant-fmanced improvements to such buildings. Each Industry Group 
component is briefly described here. All of the Industry Group components are expected to be 
constructed and operational in 2001. 

Bode Gravel / Mission Valley Rock. This component of the project would consist of two adjacent 
facilities to be developed at Pier 92. Bode Gravel Company would develop a ready-mix concrete plant 
and Mission Valley Rock Company would develop a marine terminal to import aggregate materials 
(gravel and crushed rock) for use in production of concrete. In addition. Mission Valley Rock is 
pursuing discussions with the Port to develop an asphalt plant, which would also use imported aggregate 
materials: Although the Port has not indicated any affirmative interest in development of an asphalt 
plant, the potential impacts of such an operation are included in this EIR analysis. The two companies 
would be joint tenants of the Port, occupying a total area of 8.2 acres, although ownership and operations 
of the two facilities would be separate. 

Bode currently operates a ready-rriix concrete plant at Third and Sixteenth Streets, within the Mission 
Bay area now under development, and would dismantle this plant and construct a new facility at Pier 92. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-1 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



The new Bode ready-mix plant would have the same capacity as the existing plant. It would be at the 
east end of Amador Street, approximately one-third mile east of Third Street, between an existing 
Mission Valley Rock sand processing plant to the north and a rendering plant to the south. The ready- 
mix plant would include receiving and storage facilities for sand and aggregate material; storage silos for 
Portland cement and "fly ash,"^ both of which are used in the production of concrete; a series of 
conveyer belts and pneumatic pumps for movement of the materials throughout the plant; and two 
combined mixers and storage silos, each known as a "batching plant," that would be approximately 
65 feet tall. The plant would employ a "baghouse filter" and spray bars for dust control. In addition to 
the production facilities, the operation would have a truck maintenance shop, truck washout station with 
water reclamation, an office trailer, and parking for cement mixers and employee vehicles. 

The Mission Valley Rock aggregate import terminal would be located immediately west of the Bode 
concrete plant,- also on Amador Street, approximately one-quarter mile east of Third Street. As indicated 
previously. Mission Valley Rock is also pursuing discussions with the Port to develop an asphalt plant. 
There are currently no privately owned commercial asphalt plants in San Francisco (the closest is in 
Brisbane). The City operates a plant on Jerrold Avenue for street repairs within San Francisco. Mission • 
Valley Rock currently has'a sand dredging and processing operation at Pier 92, east of the proposed Bode 
concrete plant, where operations would continue. The proposed asphalt plant would include receiving 
and storage facilities for sand, aggregate, and asphalt cement; an asphalt oil heater and an asphalt drum 
dryer/mixer, both gas-fired; storage bins for the finished asphalt product, which would be dispensed from 
the bins into trucks for delivery to the job site; and conveyors for movement of the materials throughout 
the plant. The dryer/mixer would be equipped with a baghouse filter for dust control. In addition to the 
production facilities, the plant would have an office/control room, a small tool trailer, and employee 
vehicle parking. 

The aggregate terminal would include conveyor systems for transferring aggregate from ships to indoor 
and outdoor storage piles and for transferring aggregate from storage to the proposed asphalt plant and to 
the Bode ready-mix concrete plant, as well as both indoor (in an existing warehouse along the Islais 
Creek waterfront ) and outdoor storage facilities. Mission Valley Rock would use spray bars to sprinkle 
aggregates with water during ship unloading, both at the ship conveyor and at the outdoor stockpile 
where the material would arrive. The entire Mission Valley Rock site would be paved with asphalt or 
concrete. 

British Pacific Aggregates (BPA) would develop a storage facility for the waterbome importation of 
construction aggregates (sand, gravel, and crushed stone) to be used in the production -of concrete and 



Fly ash is a powdery material, composed largely of silica, that, is captured from the exhaust gas of coal-fired power plants. It 
reacts chemically with the calcium hydroxide in Portland cement and itself becomes cementitious (that is, helps bind the sand 
and aggregate in the concrete). Fly ash is advocated as improving the strength and durability of concrete - although it slows 
the initial curing - while at the same time reducing the relative volume of cement needed and thereby reducing the energy 
use and combustion byproducts of cement production. Fly ash is mandated in concrete by both Caltrans, for its projects, and 
by the U.S. EPA, for federal projects. One of the Industry Group components would include a fly ash import operation (see 
ISG Resources, p. 14). 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-2 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



asphalt. BPA proposes to use Pier 94 as the dock for ships that would bring aggregate from out-of-state 
to supplement and/or replace existing local supplies. The aggregate would be delivered by self- 
unloading ships directly to Pier 94, where it would be unloaded using on-board equipment and stored in 
partially enclosed stockpiles in up to about six acres on the pier apron (out of a total lease site of about 
10 acres), approximately 150 feet shoreward of the wharf. To minimize dust, BPA would use spray bars 
to.moisten aggregate both during unloading and while in storage. Improvements to be constructed would 
include outdoor storage bins for aggregate and sand, and possibly conveyors to move material from one 
location to another and/or for loading into trucks for transport to end users. Front-end loader(s) may also 
be used for loading trucks. No new paving would be needed, because the BPA storage facilities would 
be located on an already -paved portion of the Pier 94 apron. 

In addition to the shipping and storage facilities, BPA has indicated that it may develop a ready-mix 
concrete plant and/or an asphalt plant inland from the stockpile area. Both of these uses are under 
discussion with the Port and have been included in this SEIR for purposes of a consei:vative analysis. 
These facilities, if constructed, would use aggregate material taken directly from the stockpiles (without 
the need to employ diesel haul trucks). Production of ready-mix concrete and/or asphalt by BPA would 
be contingent on the company capturing a share of the local market for one or both products. This SEIR 
does not assume that BPA would engage in production of either product. However, if it does, the net 
result would not be an increase in the total volume of concrete or asphalt manufactured within the 
Southern Waterfront area, but an incremental shift in the location of such production. Should such 
production be undertaken, the concrete and/or asphalt plant(s) would be portable facilities that would be 
erected on a semi-permanent basis at Pier 94 for the duration of BPA' s lease. Regardless of whether 
concrete or asphalt were produced, no permanent structures would be erected. Other facilities, such as an 
office and tool/repair shop, would be within portable trailers. On-site parking also would be provided. 

ISG Resources" Inc. proposes to re-use two existing banks of now-vacant former grain silos at Pier 90 
for the storage of "fly ash," a byproduct of coal-fired power plants that is used as a partial replacement 
for Portland cement' in the production of concrete. The silos formerly stored grain that was brought in by 
rail and then loaded from the silos Onto ships for export. These operations were discontinued following 
the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Hy ash would be brought in by rail car, transferred to the silos, and 
then made available to concrete producers, including those currently proposing to operate in the 
inmiediate vicinity - Bode, RMC Pacific, and smaller local producers (and potentially British Pacific). 
In the future, fly ash could be brought by barge from other locations and offloaded into the silos. 
Outbound shipments to concrete batching plants would be in trucks with pneumatic pumping systems. 

Physical improvements to be undertaken on the 2.3-acre site would consist of rehabilitation of the silos; 
enclosure of the conveyor system and installation of state-of-the-art dust control systems on the silos and 
conveyor system; replacement of the electrical and propulsion components for the conveyor system; 
construction of a truck loading facility; and rehabilitation of at least one of the existing rail spurs to allow 
for shipment of fly ash to the ISG site by rail car. Employee parking would be provided on-site. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-3 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



RMC Pacific Materials. RMC Pacific proposes to construct a ready-mix concrete plant on a 3.1-acre 
parcel at the west end of Pier 80, at the southeast comer of Illinois and Marin Streets, to replace its 
existing ready-mix plant at Third and Mariposa Streets, within the Mission Bay project currently under 
development. RMC's existing plant would be dismantled, and the new plant would be developed with 
new equipment. The RMC Pacific site is currently paved and in use as a storage yard by Marine 
Terminals Corporation, which operates the Port's North Container Terminal at Pier 80. RMC proposes 
to receive much of its raw materials - primarily aggregate - by rail and ship. The proposed new ready- 
mix plant would include receiving and unloading facilities to accommodate both rail cars and ships; 
storage bins for aggregate and sand; a65-foot-tall batching plant with cement and fly ash storage silos, 
mixer, office, and dust containment system; and a series of conveyors for movement of the materials 
throughout the plant. In addition to the production facilities, the ready-mix plant would have a truck' 
maintenance shop (involving remodeling of an existing open-bay structure), truck vvashout station with 
water reclamation, and parking for concrete-mixer trucks and employee vehicles. No on-site truck 
fueling would be provided. RMC mixers would use off^site commercial fueling stations. 

Waste Resources Technologies (WRT), a subsidiary of Waste Management Inc., proposes to operate a 
Construction/Demolition Material Recovery Facility (MRF) in an existing building at Pier 70, in the 
northem portion of the project site. The MRF, which would reclaim usable materials, such as metal and 
wood, contained in construction and demolition debris for recycling, would replace a former WRT 
facility near 3Com Park, which was closed in 1999. 

WRT proposes to lease an existing building at Pier 70, located near 20th and Illinois Streets, in the 
former Union Iron Works complex. The structure, identified as Building 1 16, contains approximately 
24,000 square feet of interior space. There would be no structural modifications to the exterior of the 
building, which was constructed in 1917. However, WRT would renovate portions of the building's 
interior to accommodate the MRF. WRT would install a sort line with associated screens, conveyors, 
and other equipment for processing of construction and demolition material inside Building 1 16. In 
contrast to WRT' s former outdoor facility at Candlestick Point, all sorting and storage of material would 
be accomplished within Building 1 16. Parking would be provided on-site for employee vehicles and for- 
staging of semi-trailer transfer trucks. 

Site access would be via 20th and Third Streets. Inbound trucks would come from various construction 
sites. Outbound trucks would be destined for local processors in the case of recyclable materials and 
local landfills, such as Redwood Landfill in Marin County and Altamont Landfill in Alameda County, in 
the case of materials that cannot be reused. Although no waterbome transport of materials is currently 
planned, there is a potential that recyclable materials, such as paper and metals, could be shipped to 
processors through the Port in the future. 

Coach USA proposes to tease approximately 8 acres at Pier 96 for bus storage, maintenance and repair, 
and ancillary office space. Coach USA, through its subsidiary Grosvenor Bus Lines Inc., currently 
operates Gray Line tour buses, as well as charter bus service, and transit and paratransit service for 



Case No. 1999.377E 



.S-4 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



transit agencies including Golden Gate Transit and San Mateo County Transit (SamTrans). Grosvenor 
Bus Lines' currently operates from a facility at Eighth and Harrison Streets. The- company would relocate 
to Pier 96 and vacate its existing Eighth Street operations, where its lease is not being renewed. 

This project component would include use of an existing paved storage yard of approximately 6.9 acres 
(about 300,000 square feet), and use of existing buildings for bus maintenance and repair building (about 
26,000 square feet), office space (about 11, 500 square feet), and additional miscellaneous building space 
(about 4,000 square feet). Coach USA. plans to construct a fuel island and diesel fuel storage tank and a 
bus washer. The company also proposes to make some improvements to the buildings that would be 
used for miaintenance/repair and office space. On-site parking for employees and buses would be 
provided. Buses would enter and leave Pier 96 via Cargo Way. 

ILLINOIS STREET INTERMODAL BRIDGE 

The Port of San Francisco proposes to construct a bridge across the Islais Creek chaimel one block east 
of the existing Levon Hagoop Nishkian drawbridge on Third Street. The new bridge would extend 
across the chaimel along the line of Illinois Street, connecting the Port's North Container Terminal at 
Pier 80, on the north side of Islais Creek, with the numerous Port facilities on the south side of Islais 
Creek. These facilities include the Port's South Container Terminal at Piers 94-96; the adjacent 
Intermodal Container Transfer Facility, where cargo containers are transferred directly from ship to rail 
and vice versa; Piers 90 and 92 along the south side of Islais Creek channel; and the Piers 90-94 
backlands area. ; . 

The Illinois Street bridge would provide a more direct route for rail cargo to and from Pier 80. Rail 
traffic destined to Pier 80 must currently travel north on a route that generally follows Interstate 280, 
more than one mile past the project site and through the Mission Bay area, beyond 16th Street, before 
returning south along Illinois Street to Pier 80. As part of the approved Mission Bay project, a portion of 
the existing rails through the Mission Bay area will be removed and are proposed for replacement with 
new rails within 16th Street, and a new switchback within a planned waterfront open space on the Terry 
Francois Boulevard right-of-way unless or until the Illinois Street Bridge is constructed. The bridge 
would reduce the existing approximately four-mile rail trip between Pier 80 and Piers 94-96, over the 
existing rail route, to a direct route of approxiniately 0.2 miles. When the bridge is completed, the rails 
that run near 16th Street would be removed, and there would be no need to install new rails in 16th Street 
or in the new waterfront open space. . . 

The Illinois Street bridge would be approximately 28 feet wide and would have a single rail line in the 
center and two traffic lanes, one in each direction, that would overlap the rails. Thus, the bridge would 
provide a direct truck connection between the two container facilities, with trucks having access to the 
bridge only when no trains were crossing. Bicycle access would be allowed in the traffic lanes when no 
trains are crossing, but ijo sidewalks are proposed. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-5 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



The Port proposes that the Illinois Street bridge be a "Lift-Segment Movable Bridge," meaning that the . 
center span, which would be 60 feet long, would be constructed as three individual segments that could 
not be mechanically raised in place like a drawbridge. Instead, each of these segments could be lifted by 
a crane and stored on concrete piers that would be built next to the bridge. Unlike a drawbridge, a lift- 
segment bridge is designed to be opened only infrequently, primarily for passage of maintenance vessels 
and barges. Therefore, the new bridge would probably be opened no more than once yearly. 

The proposed lift-segment bridge would have the same clearance above water as the Third Street 
drawbridge over Islais Creek, which is a minimum of 4 feet of clearance at mean higher high water level. 
This would permit navigation beneath the Illinois Street bridge by small pleasure craft such as canoes, 
kayaks, and other small vessels like rowboats. The Port believes the navigational needs of the west end 
of Islais Creek are and will continue to be for small vessels. A hand-launch dock has been constructed 
on the south shore of Islais Creek, just west of the existing Third Street drawbridge. A sand ramp has 
also recently been constructed to facilitate the hand-launching of small vessels. The Port does not 
propose to open the new Illinois Street bridge to permit the passage of larger pleasure craft or sailboats. 

The design and construction of the Illinois Street bridge would be subject to approval of a bridge permit 
by the U.S. Coast Guard, which must determine the future navigational needs of Islais Creek before it 
issues a permit. The Coast Guard woiild determine whether a lift-segment span is appropriate. The 
bridge would also require approval by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) 
because it would be constructed over the Bay and within the 100-foot band along the San Francisco Bay 
shoreline over which BCDC has jurisdiction. The BCDC would also be required to find the bridge 
consistent with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Approval could also be required from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (including consultation 
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and Section 10 of the federal Rivers and Harbors Act. In 
addition, the bridge would require water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control 
Board, under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Because of the federal action and funding, 
environmental review of the bridge must also include completion of a document prepared pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act. In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission would have 
to approve the change in rail route and abandonment of track within the Mission Bay project area. 
Funding authorization would be required from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the Port 
Commission must also approve the bridge project. A building permit would also be required. 

FUTURE PORT DEVELOPMENT 

The project analyzed in this SEIR also includes growth in cargo shipping at Piers 80 and 94-96 - the 
Port's two container terminals - and expansion of the Port's dredge material handling program, as well 
as potential future development of several other Port sites, or "opportunity areas," in the "backlands" 
(upshore from) Piers 90-94, and at and near Pier 70. Although the Port has not identified specific 
development proposals for these opportunity areas at this time, the Port's Waterfront Land Use Plan does 
allow future development proposals, and these potential future uses are therefore part of the "project" as 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-6 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SElR 



I. SUMMARY 



defined for CEQA purposes, anticipated for the most part to be implemented by the SEIR horizon year of 
2015. The actual range of potential development is broad, with widely varying environmental impacts. 
For "analytical purposes, this SEIR assumes relatively intensive uses to produce a conservative 
assessment of environmental impacts. Any actual development program or project(s) for the below areas 
(other than cargo shippirtg at Piers 80 and 94-96 and Port dredge material handling at Pier 94) proposed 
in the future may be reviewed by a community advisory group process set forth in the Waterfront Plan, 
and would be Subject to additional project-specific environmental review. 

Cargo Shipping. The Port's two container tenriinals, at Pier 80 and Pier 94-96, would potentially 
accommodate increased cargo shipping activity consisting of handling of both containerized and non- 
containerized cargo, The project therefore would include movement of approximately 200,000 TEU^ of 
new cargo (beyond existing volumes of approximately 50,000 TEU) in addition to the cargo activity 
associated with the Industry Group leases. Of the 200,000 new TEU, 30,000 TEU is assumed to be 
accommodated by 2001, another 20,000 TEU by 2003, and 150,000 additional TEU by 2015. Cargoes 
may be containerized or bulk, depending on demand from shippers. 

Dredge Material Handling Site. The Port has recently begun storing material dredged from the Bay 
during routine maintenance dredging from Piers 35, 80, and 96. (The Port also uses storage sites in the 
East Bay.) Currently, dredge material is placed by crane onto the pier deck within a temporary three- 
acre enclosure at Pier 96 and allowed to drain and partially dry (to about 20 percent moisture content) 
before being hauled by truck to landfills, where it is used as daily cover for solid waste landfilling . 
operations. The (drained) decant water is discharged to the Bay. The Port plans to expand this operation 
and move it to Pier 94, where it would occupy up to about five acres of unpaved land north of the paved 
pier apron. At the new site, about 20,000 cubic yards of dredge material per year would be pumped from 
a barge iBto the drying area. It is anticipated that the off-hauling by truck of partially dried dredge 
materials would occur over a period of about two weeks during the year. Trucks would travel on 
Amador Street. 

Piers 90-94 BaCklands. This approximately 50-acre area would potentially be developed with a mix of 
about 650,000 square feet of light industrial uses and approximately 1 million square feet of commercial 
office and/or research and development uses. Office and/or research and development uses wquld be 
anticipated to occur in two- to three-story buildings that would be expected to include landscaped open 
spaces as part of an overall site plan. 

Pier 70. The project analyzed in this SEIR includes development of approximately 200,000 square feet 
of new Maritime Industrial uses and an additional 200,000 square feet of General Industrial uses within 
the 55-acre Pier 70 Maritime Reserve Area. The Waterfront Plan includes Maritime Industry among the 
uses related to waterbome commerce and navigation. Maritime Industry could also include Maritime 
Support uses such as equipment storage and warehousing uses. The Plan defines General Industry as 
"facilities for enclosed and open air industrial activities, including but not limited to: recycling 

^ See footnote 7, p. 3, for an explanation of TEU (twenty-foot equivalent unit). 



CaseNo.1999.377E 



S-7 

ESA 990267 



Soulhcni Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



operations, automobile repair and related services, bio-remediation, sand and gravel operations, 
transmission facilities, and manufacturing operations." 

Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity . Area. The project analyzed in this 3EIR includes development of this 
16-acre area, between 18th and 21st Streets and extending one to three blocks east of Illinois Street. It is 
anticipated that uses in this area would include a mix of uses, including approximately 610,000 square 
feet of commercial office and/or research and development space; 100,000 square feet of retail and other 
commercial space; and 240,000 square feet of public access and recreational maritime uses. The Port 
plans to issue a Request for Proposals to potential developers of the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity Area 
in late 2000. (An alternative considered in this SEIR would include housing on a portion of the Pier 70 
Mixed-Use Opportunity Area.) 

Western Pacific Property. This site, a former rail yard east of Illinois Street between 25th and Cesar 
Chavez (Army) Streets, will be partially occupied by a Muni Metro maintenance and storage facility that 
will be constructed as part of the soon-to-be undertaken Third Street Light Rail Extension project, The 
Muni Metro facility was analyzed in the EIR/EIS for the Light Rail Project, and will occupy about three- 
fourths of the approximately 25-acre Western Pacific Property. No specific development projects are 
forecast for the remainder of the Western Pacific Property. However, as part of the project analyzed in 
this SEIR it is assumed that pait of the remainder of this site would be occupied by General Industrial 
uses, potentially including construction-related uses such as materials storage, on an interim basis. 

B. MAIN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

LAND USE (p. 25) 

In Phase I, six private entities would lease sites or facilities in the project area. All but one of these 
operations would be related to the construction industry, and that one entity proposes to lease a site for 
bus storage, maintenance and repair. These facilities are interim uses assumed to have leases with the 
Port at least to 2015 . Most of the proposed lessees are currently located at existing sites at other 
locations in San Francisco, and would relocate to the project area. The relocation and location of the 
Industry Group operations would be a continuation, rehabilitation or expansion of industrial uses in the 
Southern Waterfront. Therefore, the Industry Group coinponent of the project would not disrupt or 
divide the physical arrangement or iiripact existing character of other industrial uses in the project area or 
nearby residential communities. The majority of the Industry Group components would include a 
maritime component in their operations, and therefore wpuld be considered maritime tenants' of the Port. 

In Phase II of the project. Pier 80 and Piers 94-96 would support increased future maritime activity for 
both containerized and non-containerized cargo, consistent with the Waterfront Land Use Plan. Some of 
the additional cargo shipping would be associated with cargo activity proposed by Industry Group 
members, while other activity would be general cargo shipping. These uses would not disrupt or divide 
the physical arrangement of the adjacent Port uses or nearby residential and commercial communities, as 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-8 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



they woiild represent a continuation of existing Port activity. The Port . uses would therefore have a less- 
than-significant land use impact. 

With regard to non-cargo activity on Port lands, these uses would also be a continuation and expansion 
of existing maritime and industrial operations on Port property in the Southern Waterfront. These uses 
would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of project area uses or nearby residential 
communities, as developiiient would occur entirely on Port property near similar maritime and industrial 
uses, and therefore the impact would be less than significant. New uses, such as office, research and 
development, and retail uses, would not conflict with nearby maritime-related and industrial uses. Mixed 
use development on the Pier 70 backlands would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the 
project area uses or nearby residential communities and, although these uses would change the existing 
character in this section of the Southern Waterfront, area, the impact would be less than significant 
impact because neither adjacent Port uses nor surrounding residential communities would be adversely 
affected. Rather, the mixed-Use area would serve as a buffer between maritime and industrial uses 
nearest the water and residential uses in the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood, on Potrero Hill, and in 
Dogpatch. : 

The Industry Group project components address several Waterfront Plan objectives for the Southern 
Waterfront subarea. The Industry Group project components would help maximize the utilization of 
•existing cargo terminal facilities and would also maximize the productivity of Port assets through interim 
use of property reserved for maritime expansion. Most of the Industry Group components would include 
a maritime component in their operations, either import or use of construction-related aggregate 
materials, or both. Therefore, the Industry Group components would not interfere with the port priority 
area designations of their sites in the Bay Area Seaport Plan. In light of the above, the Industry Group 
components of the project would not obviously or substantially conflict with applicable plans and 
policies. ' 

The proposed Illinois Street Intermodal Bridge would not substantially or obviously conflict with 
applicable objectives of the San Francisco General Plan or the Waterfront Land Use Plan objectives for 
the Southern Waterfront. The bridge would help maximize the utilization of existing cargo terminal 
facilities at Piers 80 and 94-96 by creating more direct and efficient rail and truck access to the Port 
container facilities on the north and south sides of Islais Creek. The bridge would be an acceptable 
maritime use as it supports marine cargo and handling facilities. No substantial conflicts with BCDC 
policies or other regulatory requirements have been identified that would prevent a finding of 
consistency under the Coastal Zone Management Act or other regulatory approvals. 

Development of currently unprogrammed Port lands would not substantially conflict with adopted plans 
and policies. Maritime related development on Piers 70, 80 and 94-96 would help maximize the 
utilization of existing cargo terminal facilities. Mixed use commercial, office and retail development on 
Pier 70 and Pier 94 backlands would promote non-maritime land uses that could be beneficial to the Port 
and compatible with maritime activities in areas which are surplus to long-term maritime needs, although 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-9 

ESA 990267' 



Sourhcni Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



introduction of office or research and development uses outside the Cargo Way, Western Pacific, or 
Pier 70 Opportunity Areas would require amendment of the Waterfront Plan to permit such uses. 
Development of the Mixed Use Opportunity Area at Pier 70 east of Illinois Street would promote non- 
maritime activities around the historic Union Iron Works buildings, and facilitate the revitalization of an 
area that survives as an example of San Francisco's earliest maritime industry. 

The creation of new public access, recreational maritime uses, and landscaped open space in the mixed 
use opportunity areas would be consistent with the Southern Waterfront objectives to improve areas 
which will provide opportunities for passive and active recreational uses, and would enhance the public's 
appreciation of the waterfront by providing greater opportunities for access in a manner which does not 
compromise the efficiency of maritime operations. The most recent update of the Bay Area Seaport Plan 
removed the Western Pacific site from port priority area designation and most of the Pier 90-94 
backlands has also been removed from port priority area status. Therefore, anticipated future Port 
development would not interfere with the port priority area designations of their sites in the Bay Area 
Seaport Plan. 

TRANSPORTATION (p. 46) • 

Travel Demand. Most of the traffic gienerated by Phase I of the project (primarily the Industry Group 
components) would be truck traffic in connection with the production of construction aggregates and 
shipping activity at the Port. The Industry Group project components would generate about 
2,200 vehicle trips (a trip is one way; two trips make up a round trip) per day, of which about 1,850 
would be truck trips. In the moming (a.m.) peak hour, the Industry Group components would generate 
about 480 vehicle trips, while they would generate about 325 vehicle trips in the afternoon (p.m.) peak 
hour. An estimated 210 additional daily vehicle trips, including about 180 truck trips, would be made to 
and from the project area by the time the Industry Group components are operational, including about 
50 a.m. peak-hour vehicle trips and about 20 p.m. peak-hour vehicle trips. These trips would be 
generated by other anticipated uses on Port land, including additional cargo shipping at Pier 96 beyond 
that currently existing and future industrial activity on the Western Pacific site. By 2003, when the 
Illinois Street bridge would be in place and the Muni Third Street light rail line would begin service, 
nearly 1,700 additional vehicle trips, including almost 1,300 truck trips, would be made to and from the 
project area each day on Port land, including about 125 a.m. peak-hour vehicle trips and about 1 10 p.m. 
peak-hour vehicle trips. 

By 2015, overall daily vehicle trip generation would nearly quintuple, largely as a result of future 
development that would occur on port property, including more than 1.6 million square feet of office and 
research and development space at the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity Area and the Fier 90-94 
backlands, and 100,000 square feet of retail space at the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity Area. Also 
included is more than 1 million square feet of light, general, and maritime industrial uses at Pier 70 and 
Piers 90-94. This future port development would generate more than 14,000 daily vehicle trips, nearly 
1,800 vehicle trips in the a.m. peak hour and more than 1,700 vehicle trips in the p.m. peak hour. In 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-10 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



addition, anticipated growth in cargo shipping would increase daily vehicle trip generation from Port 
activity by nearly 50 percent (to approximately 2,450) and p.m. peak-hour vehicle trip generation by 
55 percent (to about 170), compared to 2003 levels; a.m. peak-hour trip generation would more than 
double, compared to 2003, to approximately 265 vehicle trips. Industry Group truck traffic would also 
increase because, while the percentage of raw materials brought in by ship would increase, the increased 
production volume assumed by 2015 would result in more local truck trips by cement mixers and asphalt 
trucks making deliveries. 

Traffic . Traffic generated in the near term,, mostly by the hidustry Group components, would adversely 
affect two intersections: morning (a.m.) peak-hour operations at the signalized intersection of Third 
Street and Cargo Way would deteriorate from Level of Service (LOS) B under existing conditions to 
LOS F, and at the signalized intersection of 25th and Third Streets, afternoon (p.m.) peak-hour 
conditions would deteriorate, also to LOS F from an existing LOS B. These changes would occur in the 
near term, by about 2001. By 2003,. with additional traffic from development on Port land and from 
background growth, p.m. peak-hour conditions at Third and Cargo would also deteriorate to LOS F 
without the Illihois Street Bridge, from LOS C at present and LOS D with Existing-plus-Industry Group 
(near term) conditions. Also by 2003, a third intersection would be adversely affected: the unsignalized 
intersection of Amador Street and Cargo Way would deteriorate to LOS F in the p.m. peak hour with 
Phase I traffic and completion of the Illinois Street bridge. However, conditions at Third and Cargo 
would improve with completion of the bridge and the resulting redistribution of truck traffic, so that this 
intersection would operate at LOS C iii the a.m. peak hoiu- and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. With the 
bridge, conditions at this intersection would remain acceptable through 2015. Conditions in the p.m. 
peak hour at 25th and Third would improve to LOS C following implementation of the Third Street Light 
Rail Project, which, will add a separate left-turn signal phase at that intersection. The impact at Amador 
and Cargo could be mitigated through installation of a traffic signal; with a signal, conditions would 
remain acceptable through 2015. 

At the unsignalized intersection of Mariposa Street and the Interstate 280 southbound on-ramp, 

which currently operates at LOS F during both peak hours, Phase I of the project would result in 
increased delays during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. By 2015, this intersection is scheduled to be 
signalized, and the signalized intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS under 2015 No-Project 
conditions (i.e., without the Industry Group project components or future Port development).^ However, 
the addition of Phase I and Phase II project traffic by 2015 would result in unacceptable conditions at this 
intersection, even signalized: LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and LOS E in the p.m. peak-hour. This 
would be a significant effect, and would not be mitigable, as the intersection capacity would be 
exceeded. The other 11 study intersections would, operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or 
better) in all scenarios prior to 2015. 



^ Mitigation for intersection levels of service identified in the Mission Bay Subsequent EIR (Case No. 96.77 IE. Final SEIR 
certified September 17, 1998) is keyed to generation of specific volumes of traffic, and thus, based on development 
assumptions, is assumed to be in place by 2015 at the Mariposa Street / 1-280 southbound on-ramp intersection, although it 
could occur earlier, 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-11 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



The Illinois Street bridge Would allow for.removal of railroad tracks that currently run through the 
Mission Bay project area and would represent a benefit to traffic patterns in the Mission Bay area: the 
approved Mission Bay plan currently calls for the tracks that connect the Union Pacific main line to 
those on Illinois Street to be replaced with tracks in the 16th Street right-qf-way. With completion of the 
Illinois Street bridge, there would be no need for tracks in 16th Street, thereby eliminating a potential 
conflict between trains and vehicle traffic. 

By 2015, all intersections except Third and Cesar Chavez Streets would operate at acceptable levels of 
service under No Project conditions, accounting for background growth including traffic from the 
Hunters Point Shipyard redevelopment project, the Mission.Bay project, and the Bayview-Hunters Point 
redevelopment area. The poor LOS at Third / Cesar Chavez Streets would result from changes in lane 
configuration due to the Third Street Light Rail Project and increased background (non-project) traffic. 
Additional traffic from future Port development (Phase 11 of the project), along with Phase I traffic, 
would result in unacceptable conditions (LOS E or LOS F) at eight of 17 study intersections in the a.m. 
peak hour and at 10 of 17 study intersections in the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, the project would result 
in a significant effect at each of these intersections. Mitigation has been identified to reduce impacts to a 
less-than-significant level at Third / 25th Streets; Illinois / 25th Streets; Pennsylvania Street / 1-280 
southbound on-ramp; Pennsylvania / Cesar Chavez Streets; and, Illinois Cesar Chavez Streets, as well as 
at Amador Street / Cargo Way, as described above (see Chapter IV, Mitigation Measures, p. 145). 
Impacts at five intersections would not be mitigable. These include Mariposa Street / 1-280 southbound 
on-ramp, described above; Mariposa Street / 1-280 northbound off-ramp; Third / Mariposa Streets; Evans 
Avenue / Cesar Chavez Street; and Third / Cesar, Chavez Streets."^ 

Transit. Approximately 9 percent of employee trips to work for Phase I of the project (primarily the 
Industry Group components) are anticipated to be made using transit, which is half the percentage 
typically assumed for southeastern San Francisco. This is because transit access to the Industry Group 
sites is currently limited, and many workers would be expected to begin and end their work days prior to 
more typical work hours. As a result. Phase I would generate fewer than 25 transit trips in the a.m. and 
p.m. peak hours. These new transit riders would represent a very small increase over existing ridership 
in the area, and would not result in a significant effect. 

Phase II of the project includes additional growth in cargo shipping and related activities at Pier 70 (the 
maritime reserve area). Pier 80, and Piers 94-96, as well as development of non-maritime and non- 
industrial uses at the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity Area and the Piers 90-94 backlands. The Mixed- 
Use Opportunity Area and the backlands together would include 1.6 million square feet of office and/or 
research and development space and 100,000 square feet of retail space, which would have trip 
generation characteristics such that transit use among commuters and visitors would likely be greater 
than that assumed for the maritime and industrial uses elsewhere in the project area. Of the estimated 



The Department of Pariciiig and Traffic is considering the addition of a second northbound left-tuni lane at the Third / C6sar 
Chavez Streets intersection. However, this would require the acquisition of additional right-of-way on Third Street at the 
southeast comer of the intersection, where there is an existing building! The feasibility of diis measure is not known. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-12 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



approximately 680 a.m. peak-hour and 625 p.m. peak-hour transit trips, about 80 percent would be made 
in the peak direction (to the work place in the morning and from the work place in the afternoon). 

The increase in transit ridership by 2015, along with growth in ridership due to other development in the 
project area and elsewhere, could be accommodated by Muni routes serving the project area. On the 
Third Street Light Rail line, the percent of p.m. peak-hour, peak-direction transit vehicle capacity used 
("capacity utilization") would be 83 fiercent in the p.m. peak hour. The project would add about 450 new 
riders, and increasing capacity utilization from 45 percent (with cumulative growth but without the 
project) to 83 percent with the project Because adequate capacity would remain, the effect would not be 
significant. Peak-direction capacity utilization on the three principal bus lines that serve the project area 
(19-Poik, 22-Fillmore, and 48-24th Street/Quintara Avenue) would be between 90 percent and 
100 percent. Only the 22-Fillmore would operate at capacity;' however, project ridership would amount 
to only 6 trips, and would not result in a significant effect. Project ridership on the other lines would be 
40 trips or less; adequate capacity would remain on these lines and the project impact would not be 
significant. ' 

Project ridership by 2015 pn regional transit carriers would total about 190 p.m. peak-hour trips, mostly 
on BART and Caltrain. Both BART (to the East Bay) and AC Transit would operate in excess of 
capacity, although BART trains would remain within the system's standard of 1 15 percent for the three- 
hour peak period. Project-generated ridership would increase BART capacity utilization by less than 
0.5 percent, and AC Transit capacity utilization by less than 0.3 percent, and therefore would not result in 
a significant impact, because the contribution to cumulative overcrowding would be negligible. 

Parking. Parking effects of Phase I development would be limited, because parking demand generated 
by the Industry Group components would be limited almost entirely to employee vehicles, and each of 
the Industry Group sponsors has indicated plans to provide for on-site employee parking. Future Port 
development in Phase 11 of the project would include more conventional land uses. The development of 
niore than 1.6 million square feet of office and research and development space at the Pier 70 Mixed-Use 
Opportunity Area and the Pier 90-94 backlands would result in an estimated demand for nearly 
3,300 parking spaces, or about two-thirds of the parking demand for Phase II of the project. Actual 
parking demand aiid requirements could vary by use and by site, depending on the actual uses that are 
proposed in the future on Port property. It is assumed that the relative lack of site constraints (i.e., the 
availability of large development sites) would facilitate the provision of both adequate parking and off- 
street loading space for individual projects, meaning that no significant effects would be expected. It is 
also assumed that large projects that may be proposed would be subject to detailed transportation 
analyses. 

'Bicycles and Pedestrians. Phase I project components (primarily those of the Industry Group) would 
generate little in the way of pedestrian or bicycle traffic, so the potential effects of the project would be 
largely those of increased truck traffic on existing pedestrians and bicycles, mainly bicycles on Third 
Street, where increased traffic fi^om the project and other sources could increase the potential for 



Case No. 1 999.377 E 



S-I3 

ESA 990267 



Soulhem W aterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



conflicts. The Department of Parking and Traffic is also considering a new bicycle route on Illinois 
Street. Pedestrian activity would be accommodated on existing sidewalks. It should be noted that much 
of the project area east of Illinois Street is, and will continue to be, a heavy industrial area, and that the 
provision of pedestrian access for casual walkers is not necessarily the public benefit it would be in areas 
of the waterfront north of Pier 70. • 

By 2015, with implementation of Phase n of the project (futiire Port development, including increased 
cargo shipping), traffic volumes would increase further, and pedestrian and bicycle use in the project 
area would also be anticipated to increase, particularly if mixed-use development occiu-s as planned at 
Pier 70 and at the Pier 90-94 backlands. Development of these mixed-use projects would be reviewed by 
the Port to ensure that adequate pedestrian access is provided, potentially including construction of 
sidewalks where none exist on the perimeter of the development sites, and would also be required to 
include bicycle parking in accordance with the requirements in the Plaiming Code. Thus, pedestrian and 
bicycle conditions would be improved from conditions at present. 

The project would not adversely affect pedestrian access to the Bay Trail, which is designated on Illinois 
Street north of 24th Street and on Third Street south of 24th Street. Existing sidewalks on these streets 
would remain in place and would continue to function as part of the Bay Trail. 

Construction. Construction activity could occur simultaneously at several of the Industry Group project 
sites, beginning in early 2001. However, as interim facilities without permanent structures, mostly 
developed on already paved land, these components would not generate substantial or lengthy 
construction impacts. Effects on local traffic would be considerably less extensive than those described 
for the Phase I project itself, because the volume of construction-related traffic would be much less than 
the traffic volumes once all Industry Group components were operational. Phase II, including future Port 
development of the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity Area and the Piers 90-94 Backlands, could result in 
temporary construction-period impacts much like those of typical urban development, but would not be 
considered significant. 

AIR QUALITY (p. 78) 

Construction-period impacts were evaluated qualitatively and with reference to the dust control measures 
that can be implemented to reduce the. temporary air quality effects associated with construction. 
Operational impacts were evaluated quantitatively through estimates of pollutant emissions and 
concentrations. Operational impacts were examined for two years: 2003, when the Industry Group 
project components would be in operation, the Illinois Street intermodal bridge would be in place, and 
the Muni Third Street light rail line is anticipated to begin operations; and 2015, by which time the 
Future Port Development described in the Project Description would occur. With implementation of the 
Industry Group components, there is anticipated to be a shift, over time, in the transport of aggregate raw 
materials used in the production of ready-mix concrete, from truck to ship. These shifts in mode of 
transport are reflected in this analysis, as they are in the transportation analysis. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-14 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMNURY 



Two separate operational analyses were conducted for both analysis years. One aspect of the analysis 
quantifies the net change in emissions due to project-related Sources from a regional perspective 
(emissions occurring within the multi-county air basin), including emissions from stationary sources 
(e.g., industrial plants and the like) and from mobile sources (Le., motor vehicles, ships, trains, etc.). 
New emissions are calculated regardless of where they occur in the Bay Area. The other aspect of the 
analysis identifies what portion of the regional emissions would be experienced locally. The SEIR 
quantifies local project emissions and effects; in particular, due to project-related stationary sources and 
related truck traffic, on the Bay view-Hunters Point neighborhood. These calculations are provided in 
recognition of the concentration of industrial uses proposed, and the anticipated corresponding 
concentration of truck traffic, and because a substantial volume of the Phase I vehicle trips related to the 
Industry Group project components are currently being made, under existing conditions, to and from 
other parts of San Francisco. Therefore, the change in location of, for example, existing concrete plants, 
would result in very little change in emissions viewed from a regional perspective, although there would 
be the potential for a proportionately larger increase in the concentrations of certain key emissions in the 
immediate vicinity of the new plants (with a corresponding decrease in emissions concentrations at the 
existing locations). These localized calculations report results for carbon monoxide concentrations at 
local intersections, as well as concentrations of respirable particulate matter (PM-10) and diesel 
particulate matter. 

Construction Impacts. Grading and other ground-disturbing construction activities would temporarily 
affect local air quality intermittently during construction activities for each project component, causing a 
ten^orary increase in particulate dust and other pollutants. Heavy equipment would generate fugitive 
dust and would ernit combustion products, including ozone precursors (ROG and NO^), carbon 
monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and PM-10, but the most significant emissions would be fugitive dust. 
BAAQMD has identified a set of feasible PM-10 control measures for construction activities, and 
mitigation was included in the Waterfront Plan EIR to reduce construction-related air quality impacts to a 
. less-than-significant level; a revised version of this mitigation measure is included in this SEIR (see 
p. 147). With implementation of this measure, construction-related air quality effects would be reduced 
to a less-than-significant level. 

Operational Impacts - Regional. Maximum daily emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG). nitrogen 
dioxide (NO^), and respirable particulates (PM-10) from all project components combined would exceed 
the significance threshold of 80 pounds per day in both 2003 and 2015. The significance threshold for 
annual emissions of 15 tons per year would also be exceeded for ROG and NOx in each year. Therefore, 
the project would result in a significant effect with regard to emissions of criteria pollutants. This 
significant impact would occur regionally within the multi-county air basin and are not directly refieclive 
of local conditions. This impact cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level because of the 
magnitude of the project. The source of the greatest amount of emissions would be ship and rail traffic. 

Emissions of all three pollutants generated by trucks from the Industry Group components in 2003 would 
decrease, compared to existing conditions, because of the shift in means of transport from trucks to ships 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-15 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



and rail for much of the raw material used in the production of ready-mix concrete. By 2015, emissions 
would increase based on the increase in concrete and asphalt production and the corresponding increase 
in truck traffic, as well as the increase in cargo shipping at the Port. Some of the increase in vehicle 
emissions would be offset by improved emissions control technology that would be implemented over 
time. 

Operational Impacts - Local. Project-related traffic could result in localized "hot spots" or areas with 
high concentrations of carbon monoxide concentrations around stagnation points such as major 
intersections and heavily traveled and congested highways and roadways. To evaluate "hot spot" 
potential, a microscale, impact analysis was conducted adjacent to four representative intersections within 
the project area where the project would result in relatively higher volumes of traffic: Third Street / 
Cesar Chavez Street, Third Street / Mariposa Street, Illinois Street / Cesar Chavez Street, and Third 
Street / Evans Avenue. It was assumed that if the relatively higher volumes of project-generated traffic 
at.these intersections did not result in adverse impacts, impacts at other nearby intersections would 
experience similar or less substantial effects. No exceedances of the state one-hour or eight-hour 
standard were identified, and the impact relative to localized carbon monoxide would be less than 
significant 

To examine the potential health effects of localized emissions of particulate matter, including PM-IO and 
diesel particulate, dispersion modeling was conducted to determine whether the local concentration of 
such particulates would be markedly increased in the Bay view-Hunters Poiiit neighborhood as a result of 
emissions due to the project. Particulates were selected for dispersion modeling because of their 
potential adverse effects on respiratory health. The sensitive receptors selected include several schools 
and parks nearest the project area, in Bayview/Hunters Point and on Potrero Hill. These sites were 
chosen because children tend to be more susceptible than healthy adults to certain effects of air pollution. 
Also, the school sites are representative of the exposure locations of the surrounding residential 
neighborhood. 

Each of the Industry Group project components, which would represent "stationary sources" of 
particulate emissions, is proposed to include "best available control technology" (BACT) to control 
emissions, consistent with current regulations. For aggregate-handling operations (Bode Gravel, Mission 
Valley Rock, RMC Pacific, British Pacific Aggregates), this includes maintaining a moisture content in 
the aggregate that is high enough to eliminate PM-10 "fugitive" emissions (wind-blown dust that could 
otherwise escape into the surrounding air). A water spray system would be installed at each aggregate- 
handling facility, including Bode Gravel, Mission Valley Rock, RMC Pacific, and British Pacific 
Aggregates. Fine aggregate material (sand) would be maintained with a moisture content of 
approximately 5 percent, because such material with a moisture content of 4.5 percent or more produces 
virtually no fugitive emissions. Coarse aggregate (gravel) would be kept damp on the surface, which 
would also virtually eliminate fugitive dust. Aggregate would be stored in bunkers, rather than open 
piles, with water spray (including, the use of surfactants, as necessary, to bind the water and dust to the 
aggregate) applied to maintain adequate moisture content to control einissions. ISG Resources, which 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-16 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



would handle powdery fly ash; would install B ACT dust collection equipment to accommodate truck 
and rail transport and would use pneumatic equipment for transfer of fly ash. 

The asphalt plant proposed by Mission Valley Rock (and by British Pacific) would include controls on 
the drum mixer where the Asphalt cement and aggregate are mixed. Drum mixer(s) would be fired with 
natural gas, consistent with BAGT recommendations, and particulate emissions from the aggregate 
drying and mixing process would be controlled with a fabric filter, also consistent with BACT. Such 
filters can achieve contrpl efficiency of greater than 99 percent. Emissions of toxic substances from the 
asphalt plant would include mostly benzene and formaldehyde which would volatilize when the asphalt 
cement is heated. Most of these emissions would occur at the drum mixer/dryer. Using emission factors 
recently reported by U.S. EPA for hot mix asphalt plants (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000) 
in the dispersion modeling analysis, the maximum carcinogenic risk at sensitive receptors was estimated 
to be 0.3 in a million. 

The PM-10 modeling for the years 2003 and 2015 revealed that the maximum incremental contribution 
to 24-hour PM-10 concentrations at any given receptor would be 1.2 micrograms per cubic meter in 2003 
and 1.6 micrograms per cubic meter in 2015. In both cases, these maximums would be well below the 
sigiiificance standard of 5.0 micrograms per cubic meter, and would be registered at Youngblood 
Coleman Playground, on Hudson Avenue at Mendell Street, which is the closest sensitive receptor 
downwind from the concentration of proposed Industry Group components along Islais Creek. This 
playground is located adjacent to the residential area on the hill overlooking Hunters Point shipyard. The 
PM-10 concentrations at all other receptors modeled would be lower than these values. 

Based on meteorological conditions, the maximum 24-hour concentration at Youngblood Coleman 
Playground would occur on fewer than 20 days per year. Winds in the area are usually from the 
southwest through northwest, occurring about 65 percent of the time: For the westerly wind directions, 
pollutant emissions, from the project would be transported out over the Bay. 

Modeling was also conducted to determine the maximum annual average PM-10 concentrations, in 
addition to maximum daily concentrations. The maximum annual concentration in 2003 would be 
0.09 micrograms per cubic meter, while in 2015, the maximum concentration would be 0. 12 micrograms 
per cubic meter. As with the 24-hour concentrations, these highest annual averages would be well below 
the significance standard of 1.0 micrograiri per cubic meter, and would also be at Youngblood Coleman 
Playground. 

To determine the potential implications of increased emissions of diesel particulates, a newly designated 
toxic air contaminant, the relative risk of long-term exposure was calculated and compared to the 
BAAQMD's standard of 10 in 1 million (10 additional cancer cases per million persons beyond the pre- 
existing risk), based on the BAAQMD permitting procedure for stationary sources. In 2003, the 
maximum incremental risk of cancer from diesel particulate emissions resulting from the project is 
estimated to be 7.5 in 1 million (7.5 additional cancer cases per million persons, beyond the risk from 
other sources), based on 24-hoiu-s per day exposure over a period of 70 years. In 2015. the project's 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-17 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



cancer risk from diesel particulate would be 9.0 in 1 million. Both results are below the 10 in 1 million 
standard and therefore are not considered significant. To put the 10 in 1 million standard in perspective, 
the BAAQMD estimates that the incremental cancer risk from exposure to current ambient levels of 
toxic air contaminants - excluding diesel particulate matter - is 199 in a million, and the California Air 
Resources Board estimates the statewide cancer risk due to essentially all toxic air contaminants at 
758 in 1 million, of which 540 in 1 million, or about 70 percent, is estimated to be due to diesel 
particulate. 

As noted in the Setting, the analyses in this report do not assimie implementation of any of the proposed 
rules or regulations regarding diesel emissions.- Implementation of some or all of these proposals would 
reduce the cancer risk from diesel particulate to less than described here. 

Odorous Emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provides buffer distances that can be used to 
identify- areas where significant impacts from proposed odor sources, such as an asphalt batch plant, 
could occur. Generally, odor impacts at sensitive receptor locations beyond the identified buffer 
distances can be presumed to be less than significant without further analysis. For sensitive receptor 
locations located within the buffer distances, ai more detailed odor impact analysis is generally 
warranted. For an asphalt batch plant, the BAAQMD-recommended buffer distance is 1 mile. 

The asphalt plant that could be constructed and operated between the Port and Mission Valley Rock 
would be a potential source of odors and odor complaints. Emissions of volatile organic substances, 
including toxic and odorous substances, can occur from heated asphalt cement that is used in production 
of asphalt concrete. Such emissions usually emanate from the drum mixer, where the asphalt cement is 
mixed with aggregate to create asphalt concrete. Mission Valley Rock proposes to use a counter-flow 
type drum mixer, which prevents direct contact between the material being mixed and the hot exhaust 
gases in the dryer. Consequently, the temperature of the asphalt mix would be reduced, compared to 
other mixers, and vapor emissions, some of which are odorous, would be minimized. 

Residential areas are located within one mile of the potential asphalt plant site, generally to the south and 
to the northwest.. The closest residences are located approximately one-half mile south of the potential 
asphalt plant site in the residential area that is south of Fairfax Avenue in the Bay view-Hunters Point 
neighborhood. Other,. more distant, residences are located to the southwest and southeast. Odors may be 
perceived at these residences when the plant would be operating during periods when stagnant 
atmospheric conditions (i.e., little vertical air movement and low wind speeds) would coincide with 
winds blowing in their general direction. However, the confluence of these three factors (plant 
operation, stagnant atmosphere, and worst-case winds) would be rare since the plant would not normally 
operate during nighttime hours when stagnant conditions more frequently occur; high (near-ground- 
level) atmospheric stability rarely occurs during daytime hours when the plant would normally be in 
operation; and winds blowing in the direction of these residences occur only about 18 percent of the 
time. Thus, although the buffer distance between the proposed plant site and the nearest residential areas 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-18 

ESA 990267 . 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUM>L\RY 



.would not be ideal, the distance would be substantial, and operational and meteorological factors would 
, tend to diminish the potential impact. , 

The buffer between the proposed plant site and the nearest residential areas to the northwest would be 
about three-quarters of a mile. Winds in the direction of these residences occur about 9 percent of the 
time. Thus, like the residences to the south, although the buffer distance between the proposed plant site 
and the nearest residential areas would not be ideal, operational and meteorological factors would tend to 
diminish the potential impact. 

In summary, the proposed asphalt plant could raise the potential for odor impacts and complaints, but the 
related impact would not be significant because the plant would be designed to minimize volatile 
emissions (including odorous emissions) and because favorable operational and meteorological factors 
would serve to diminish the possibility for aimoying odors when most residents are home. In addition, as 
discussed in the setting section, the BAAQMD's Rules and Regulations provide a regulatory mechanism 
to remedy odor complaints in the unlikely event that they would become frequent. 

Cumulative Impacts. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, because the project would exceed 
the regional significance criteria of 80 pounds per day and 15 tons per year for both ROG and NO^ (and 
for PM-10 on a daily basis), it would also result in a sigiiificant cumulative effect. It should be noted, 
however, that the project-specific significant and cumulative effects are largely a construct of the 
BAAQMD's analysis methodology, which are geared more to a single development project, rather than a 
series of project components analyzed together, as in this SEIR. This finding of significant effect with 
respect to air quality does not necessarily mean that emissions, when modeled at the local level, will 
exceed state or federal standards. 

For carbon monoxide, the dispersion modeling results characterize cumulative conditions because a 
background concentration is inherent in the analysis and because background traffic volumes were 
included in the transportation analysis on which the carbon monoxide analysis was based. Neither 
project-specific nor cumulative carbon monoxide concentrations experienced locally would be 
significant. 

For PM-10 and diesel particulate, it is more difficult to quantify a cumulative concentration because of 
the large number of sources and their different locations. Locally, emissions from project sources, 
including both stationary and mobile sources, would be combined with emissions firom other sources, 
primarily including area traffic (local streets and freeways), as well as large stationary sources such as 
the Potrero and Hunters Point power plants. These cumulative concentrations cannot be easily 
quantified, given the array of sources in the existing environment, and are therefore considered 
significant. Local concentrations of pollutants would continue to be affected by activity levels in the 
area, by climate conditions, and by improvements in technology and fuel formulae. 

A major cumulative project that may occur in the area is a proposal to expand the electrical power output 
of Southern Energy's Potrero power plant. A modeling analysis reported in the Application for 



Case No, 1999.377E 



S-19 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



Certification submitted to the California Energy Commission indicates that the maximum 24-hour 
average PM-10 increment would be about 1.0 microgram per cubic meter. This maximum increment, 
combined with the PM-10 increment from the project, would be below the significance threshold of 
5.0 micrograms per cubic meter. Furthermore, if the Potrero plant expansion is approved, it is expected 
that the existing Hunters Point power plant, on Evans Avenue at Hunters Point Expressway, would be 
closed, under an agreement between PG&E, the operator of the Hunters Point plant, and the City. 
Closure of the Hunters Point power plant would result in a decrease in emissions of both criteria 
pollutants and toxic air contaminants in the immediate vicinity of the residential area overlooking 
Hunters Point Shipyard. . 

Cumulative air quality effects are typically discussed in terms of a project's consistency with the most 
recent Clean Air Plan (i.e., the '97 Clean Air Plan). Consistency with the plan is evaluated with 
reference to the population and employment assumptions used for the plan and with reference to 
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs). (The project would have little growth-inducing effect, and 
thus, the project would be consistent with the population and employment assumptions in the plan.) The 
'97 Clean Air Plan identifies a list of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) that are to be 
implemented by local governments'. These TCMs include support for voluntary employer-based trip 
reduction programs; improvement of bicycle access and facilities; improvement of arterial traffic - 
management; development of local clean air plans, policies, and programs; implementation of 
demonstration projects; and promotion of pedestrian travel and traffic calming measures (Bay Area Air 
Quality Management District, 1999a). The City and County of San Francisco administers programs that 
implement all of these TCMs, and, while Phase I of the project, by its nature, does not further any of the 
TCMs in particular, none of the project components would interfere with their implementation, and thus 
the project would not be inconsistent with the '97 Clean Air Plan. TCMs could be implemented as part 
of Phase II of the project, which would include development of more typical urban land uses. 

In summary, the project would result in a cumulative significant regional impact on air quality, in that 
daily volumes of the three criteria air pollutants of most concern - reactive organic gases (ROG), 
nitrogen dioxide (NO^), and respirable particulates (PM-10) - would exceed Bay. Area Air Quality 
Management District (and SEER) significance thresholds, and armual emissions of ROG and NO^ would 
also exceed annual thresholds. Locally, cumulative carbon monoxide concentrations would be less than 
significant. Cumulative concentrations of PM-10 and diesel particulate experienced locally, while 
unknown because of the wide array of sources in the existing environment, could exceed significance 
thresholds. Even though the project would not exceed new source criteria for PM-10 or the 10 in 
1 million risk level for particulates from diesel emissions, the project would add some increment to 
existing local PM-10 and diesel emissions. Monitoring date from the nearest monitoring stations 
indicates some exceedances of the state PM-10 standard. Therefore, to be conservative, these emissions 
are deemed cumulatively significant, although the project itself would not have a significant effect with 
regard to local concentrations of PM-10 or diesel particulate. , 



Case No. J999.377E 



S-20 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (p. 104) 

The proposed development in the Southern Waterfront area would result in changes in the volume of 
surface water runoff from stormwater due to changes in the extent of impervious surfaces and would 
change the volume of wastewater (sewage) and stormwater discharged to the Bay from the City's 
combined sewer system. In general, replacement of unpaved areas with structures, pavement or other 
impervious surfaces would reduce the infiltration of rainwater and would increase the volume of 
stormwater runoff flowing directly from the project site to the Bay. Development of commercial and 

, industrial uses would also result in increased wastewater flo^ys to the combined sewer system. Increases 
in volume of wastewater flows and any increases in the volume of stormwater runoff that is piped to the 

. City's combined sewer system could in turn affect the volume of treated effluent and combined sewer 
overflows discharged to the Bay. Increases in direct discharge of stormwater runoff , treated effluent, and 
combined sewer overflows to the Bay could affect water quality. 

This EIR assumes that for the Industry Group Projects neither the Port nor the tenants would construct 
on-site infrastructure related to stomiwater collection, and there would be no new connections to the 
combined sewer system to capture stormwater runoff, because the Industry Group components would be 
considered interim uses (with leases limited in length such that major capital investment in storm 
drainage inftastructure would not be economically feasible). Therefore site conditions with respect to 
drainage infrastructure are anticipated to remain the same as existing conditions. Site locations currently 
draining to the Bay would continue to do so, and locations currently draining to the City's combined 
sewer system would continue as well. 

Under the Industty Group projects, the total site areas for all projects would be about 32 acres. Of this 
32 acres,, about 25.5 acres is currently considered to be.impervious surfaces, with pavement or structures 
built on it; the remaining 6.5 acres, consisting of most of the Mission Valley Rock-Bode Gravel site at 
Pier 92, is unpaved. This site would be paVed, resulting in an increase in runoff from the Industr)' Group 
sites by about 3 percent, compared to existing conditions. The increase in direct stormwater flow to the 
Bay would be approximately 1.4 million gallons per year. Any stormwater runoff from the project site 
would be required to comply with RWQCB regulations under the NPDES program. Therefore, the minor 
increase in runoff associated with the Industry Group sites would be considered less than significant with 
mitigation. 

Future Port development would generate an estimated 300,000 gallons per day of wastewater, or less 
than 0.4 percent of thp current City wide total of 84million gallons per day (and less than 0.5 percent of 
the 67 million gallons per day currently treated at the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant). The 
project impact on dry-weather flow and the incremental impact of wastewater flow on the volume of 
combined sewer overflows would be considered less than significant. 

The approximately 100 acres where future Port development would occur is currently about one-fourth 
paved or otherwise covered with impervious surfaces. Under worst-case assumptions, the full build out 
of these projects would result in an increase of about 60 acres of impervious surfaces. This would 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-21 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



represent an estimated 60 percent increase in surface water runoff from stormwater in the area occupied 
by the future Port development sites, based on rainfall, runoff and land use assumptions developed for 
the City Public Utility Commission's Bayside Cumulative Impact Analysis in 1998! The estimated 
increase in runoff volumes would be about 12.5 million gallons per year. 

The Waterfront Plan EIR assumed that storm drainage from up to 100 acres of Port land uses could be 
piped to the City's combined sewer system. This could result in a measurable increase in bayside flows, 
made up of treated effluent and combined sewer overflows. This runoff would contribute to a 
cumulative increase of approximately 44 million gallons per year in combined sewer overflows at Islais 
Creek. Even though this increase would be permitted, recent EIRs have conservatively found the 
cumulative increase in combined sewer overflows to be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure D.3, 
p. 151, would reduce this impact to a less-thah-significant level by directing stormwater flow to the Bay 
with appropriate treatment to meet regulatory requirements, without increasing the volume of combined 
sewer system overflows. 

Stormwater runoff from urban areas is a known source of pollutants to receiving waters. Typical sources 
of pollutants could include fluid leaks from vehicles, brake pad wear, tire abrasion, pavement wear, 
sediments, pesticides from landscaped areas, and atmospheric deposition. Both oil and grease and 
sediments can act as a carrier for other pollutants as well as representing a type of pollutant. The types 
of pollutants may include metals, hydrocarbons, and organic pollutants as well as sediments. During 
rainstorms, these pollutants may be mobilized and transported in the stormwater runoff to receiving 
waters. Sometimes the first flush of each storm contains the highest concentration of pollutants, but 
release of pollutants to stormwater depends on rainfall patterns, intensity and site-specific conditions. 
All industrial users that would discharge stormwater runoff either directly to the Bay by sheet flow or 
through isolated storm drain systems would be required to comply with NPDES permit regulations. 
These regulations would likely be met through the Industrial Activities Stormwater General Permit 
adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board, but could alternatively be met through an industry 
specific permit or an individual permit. . 

The construction aggregate-related Industry Group project components, for which sediment in 
stormwater runoff would be a primary water quality concern, would include facilities, such as settling 
ponds and sediment basins to ensure that neither stormwater as sheet flow nor process water (for 
example, water used to wash out cement mixers) is transported directly to the Bay without removal of 
sediment and other solids. Much of the process water would be reused in Industry Group operations. 

Compliance with NPDES permit conditions, including preparation and implementation of a Stormwater 
Pollution Prevention Plan, would minimize potential water quality degradation associated with 
stormwater runoff. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure D.2 (implementation of source 
control Best Management Practices consistent with those identified in the Industrial / Commercial Storm 
Water Best Management Practices Handbook) and of measures identified in the Waterfront Land Use 
Plan EIR (and also presented in Section IV of this report) for tenants to participate in the Port's 



Case No. I999.377E 



S-22 

ESA 990267 



Southern Wateifront SEJR 



I. SUMMARY 



. stormwater monitoring program would further reduce the potential for Bay water quality degradation. 
Therefore, long term water quality impacts associated with stormwater runoff from Industry Group 
project components would be considered less than significant with mitigation. 

The Port's planned location of an expanded dredge material hiandling facility at Pier 94 would result in 
runoff back to the Bay of decant water from dredge material placed at Pier 94. The Regional Water 
Quality Control Board (RWQGB) would require routine testing of the decant water to ensure that 
sediment levels are below accepted criteria, and that the water does not contain chemicals (e.g., heavy 
metals) or other constituents at levels in excess of regulatory requirements. If contaminant levels were in 
> excess of applicable requirements, the RWQCB would require that the Port treat the decant water prior to 
discharging it to the Bay. Treatment could involve removal of settled solids, activated charcoal 
treatment, and other methods. Operation of the dredge material storage facility in compliance with the 
required discharge permit from the RWQCB would ensure that water quality effects on the Bay would be 
less than significant. 

The future Port development that would occur by 2015 could have similar effects to those described for 
the Industry Group project components. Potential industrial and commercial activity on currently 
unprogranraied Port lands at Pier 70 and at the 90-94 backlands would likely entail placement of large 
areas of impervious surfaces (buildings and pavement), which during dry weather accumulate pollutants 
associated primarily with industrial or urban use. Under the potential future Port development projects, 
about 200,000 square feet of maritime industry uses are proposed for the Pier 70 Maritime Reserve. As 
discussed in the Waterfront Plan, maritime industry uses may include waterbome commerce and 
nayigation and maritime support uses such as equipment storage and warehousing uses. As with the 
Industry Group components, compliance with NPDES permit conditions by developers on 
uriprogrammed Port lands would niinimize potential water quality degradation associated with 
stormwater runoff. 

Program-level water quality impacts associated with maritime uses are described in detail in the 
Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR and are summarised briefly here. Any shipping or boating activity would 
involve handling and storage of chemicals that could be discharged to surface waters. Potential pollutant 
sources include fuels, bilge water, boat cleaning and maintenance materials, sewage from boats and 
miscellaneous debris. Maritime lises could also increase the potential for fuels spills to the Bay. 
However, as described in the Waterfront Plan EIR, there are numerous regulations in place to protect 
water quality impacts associated with maritime uses. These include: federal Oil Pollution Act and 
California Oil Spill Response Act, RWQCB and U.S. Coast Guard permits for discharges from ships or 
boats, and NPDES permits for runoff from ship and boat repair facilities. Compliance with these 
regulations would minimize the potential for water quality degradation associated with maritime uses. 
Therefore, long term water quality impacts associated with maritime-uses would be considered less than 
significant with mitigation, 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-23 

ESA 990267 



Southeni Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



Construction of the various project components could affect water quality due to grading and 
earthmoving activities, use of fuels and other chemicals for construction equipment, and demolition and 
construction in proximity to the Bay. Grading and earthmoving activities would result in exposure of 
soil during construction and could result in erosion and excess sediments carried in stormwater runoff to 
surface waters. In addition, construction activities would also likely require temporary on-site use and 
storage of vehicles, fuels, wastes and other pollutant sources; if improperly handled, these pollutants 
could also be transported in stormwater runoff to surface waters. For projects with construction sites 
greater than five acres, the project sponsor would be required to obtain coverage under the statewide 
General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity described above in the 
Setting section. These requirements would potentially apply to future Port development at Pier 70 and 
the Piers 90-94 backlands, as well as to Industry Group project components including Mission Valley 
Rock, British Pacific Aggregates, and Coach USA, all of which would occupy more than five acres, 
although the areas to be disturbed through grading or excavation could be considerably smaller and none 
of these components would require a substantial volume of earthmoving. Depending on the construction 
schedule for the various projects, the remaining project components under five acres in size may also be 
required to comply with similar regulations, since it is anticipated that Phase II construction stormwater 
requirements will be in place by August 2001. 

Compliance with these regulations and NPDES permit conditions, including development and 
implementation of a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, would minimize the potential 
for water quality degradation. The SWPPP would typically be required to indicate all pollutant sources 
within the construction area and to identify best management practices to prevent discharge of pollutants 
into stormwater. However, due to the uncertain timing of construction schedules and the Phase II 
.construction stormwater requirements, a mitigation measure would require all proposed construction 
sites, regardless of size, would prepare and implement a SWPPP, in order to minimize constriiction water 
quality impacts. Therefore, with compliance of NPDES General Permit requirements for sites over five 
acres and with implementation of proposed mitigation measures for sites mider five acres, water quality 
impacts associated with construction activities would be considered less than significant. 

Water quality impacts associated with demolition and construction in proximity to the Bay are discussed 
in the Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR. Construction activities located on or adjacent to the Bay would 
result in increased potential for spills and for construction materials or debris to enter the Bay and affect 
water quality, particularly if construction activities occur on windy days. Implementation of 
improvement measures identified in the Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR would minimize the potential for 
these impacts and are presented in Chapter IV of this report. Thus, implementation of these measures in 
conjunction with the S\yPPP under the NPDES permit requirements discussed above would reduce 
potential water quality impacts to less than significant. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-24 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (p. 128) 

Potential hazardous materials-related effects include accidental release of hazardous materials or 
petroleum products, such as through a leak from an on-site fuel tank; exposure of workers or the public 
to subsurface soil or groundwater contamination; and exposure of workers or the public to hazardous 
building materials, including asbestos, lead-based paint, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and 
fluorescent lights containing mercury vapors. 

A fuel leak could affect soil, groundwater, or Bay water quality. However, businesses that store 
petroleum products above ground would be required to comply with the requirements of the City's 
Hazardous Materials Ordinance which includes the requirements for secondary containment and 
preparation of a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan to specify emergency procedures to 
be followed in the event of a spill. Regulations governing underground storage tanks (USTs) require a 
separate peirnit to operate a UST and include an inspection and monitoring requirement by the 
Department of Public Health (DPH). Further, all establishments that store fuel on-site, whether in above- 
ground or underground tanks, must register with DPH. In the unlikely event that a leak or tank rupture 
did occurs the spill would likely be contained within the secondary containment system for the tank. 
Secondary containment and implementation of emergency response procedures would minimize 
potential exposure of site personnel and the public to petroleum vapors as well as protect the site from 
potential environmental contamination. Compliance with existing regulations regarding storage and spill 
protection would therefore render this impact less than significant. 

Most project components that would involve excavation would be subject to Article 22A of the 
San Francisco Public Health Code, "Analyzing the Soil for Hazardous Wastes" (the "Maher Ordinance"), 
which requires a Site-specific investigation, potentially including soil and/or groundwater testing and 
development of health and safety protection measures if applicable, for sites along the historic bay 
margin, including most Port property, where excavation of more than 50 cubic yards of soil is proposed. 
A Maher study has been completed for Pier 92^ and could be required for other sites prior to 
construction. Compliance vvith existing Article 22A regulations would render potential impacts of 
subsurface contamination less than significant. 

Hazardous building materials may be encountered during renovation or demolition of existing buildings. 
If friable or nonfriable asbestos is present, there is a potential for release of airborne asbestos fibers w hen 
the asbestos-containing materials are disturbed, unless proper asbestos abatement precautions are taken. 
Such a release could expose the public and construction workers to airborne asbestos fibers. Compliance 
with the California Health and Safety Code and Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations 
concerning asbestos, and proper inspection and, if necessary, removal of asbestos would avoid any 
potential significant effects. 

If lead-based paint is present and has delaminated or chipped from the surfaces of the building materials, 
there is a potential for the release of airborne lead particles during construction, renovation, or other . 
activities that would disturb loose or peeling paint, unless proper lead abatement procedures are 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-25 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



followed. Construction and renovation activities must comply with Chapter 36 of the San Francisco 
Building Code, Work Practices for Exterior Lead-Based Paint. Where there is any work that may disturb 
or remove lead paint on the exterior of any building built prior to December 31, 1978, Chapter 36 
requires specific notification and work standards, and identifies prohibited work methods and penalties. 
These regulations and procedures required as part of the San Francisco Building Code would ensure that 
potential impacts due to lead-based paint would be reduced to a level of insignificance. 

If PCBs are present in the building to be demolished, leakage could expose workers to unacceptable 
levels of PCBs (greater than 5 parts per million, based on Title 22, California Code of Regulations). 
Removal of fluorescent light tubes could result in exposure to mercury vapors if the lights are broken. 
Project sponsors would ensure that survey(s) for hazardous building materials is completed prior to 
renovations of an existing building, and that removal and disposal of transformers and light tubes, if 
required, is completed. This would reduce impacts related to hazardous building materials to a less-than- 
significant level. • 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (p. 139) 

Construction of the proposed Illinois Street Bridge across Islais Creek would cause both short-term 
construction impacts and longer-term changes in habitat that would have minor, and less-than- 
significant, effects in the immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge. Construction impacts would include 
primarily water quality effects from disruption of bottom sediments when material is dredged for 
placement of bridge abutments or other in-water structures. Sediment suspension would cause some 
increases in turbidity and resettling of fine sediments that can smother and interfere with feeding "or 
, respiration of less mobile organisnis in the project area. If construction occurred during the Pacific 
herring spawning season (i.e., fi"om December to February), any eggs attached to the wharf/pilings 
adjacent to the proposed construction site, or any newly hatched larvae, may be subject to smothering or 
other negative effects of the sediments released from dredging activities. Effects on herring could be 
mitigated by avoiding activities during the December-February spawning season, if feasible. If activities 
are proposed for December through February, a qualified biological monitor should survey the area to 
determine if spawning herring are present and, if so, the contractor would temporarily cease work (see 
Mitigation Measure F. la, p. 154). . •' 

In addition to the potential for physical effects from construction activities, resuspension of bottom 
sediments can release contaminants into the water column that are harmful to aquatic life. Of concern 
would be highly organic materials that would increase the oxygen demand and possibly reduce oxygen 
levels in the adjacent waters sufficiently to harm some -less mobile organisms. If dredging were required, 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would require sediment analysis to determine the potential for 
contamination from any dredged sediments and specify disposal and dredging methods to accommodate 
the sediment character. Effects would be less than significant because of the relatively small area that 
would be affected. 



Case No. 1999.377 E 



S-26 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



", Longer term effects from bridge construction would include any displacement of existing soft bottom or 
other natural habitat by bridge abutments and/or other structures placed in, or along the water edge. This 
would remove habitat for some burrowing invertebrates such as clams and tubeworms, which are, in 
turn, forage for resident fishes such as the white croaker. This habitat would be replaced with concrete 
and thus offer "hard surface" habitat for attached organisms such as mussels and Pacific herring eggs. 
Whether the habitat is improved or reduced in value, the change would be very minor because of the 
generally degraded quality of the existing habitat and the small quantity of change in relation to the 
overall habitat of this kind in the area. 

There are wetlands located in the Southern Waterfront but outside the vicinity of the proposed Illinois 
Street bridge. The Waterfront Plan EIR notes that wetlands at Pier 98 (now knovm as Heron's Head 
Park) and at Pier 94 (Seawall Lot 352) could be adversely affected by contaminated runoff and by public 
access. Concerning the former, Section IILD, Hydrology, of this SEIR concludes that effects would be 
less than significant. Concerning the latter. Heron's Head Park has been constructed with numerous 
signs warning visitors to stay out of wildlife habitat areas, while the Pier 94 wetlands would continue to 
be located in areas surrounded by industrial uses and therefore Would not be subject to public access. 
Furthermore, the Waterfront Plan calls for "reserv[ing] or improv[ing] areas which will provide 
opportunities for the protection of wildlife habitat and for passive and active recreational areas." Project 
components would not encroach into the existing wetlands, and thus no significant effect would occur. 

C. AREAS OF GONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED 

Perhaps the greatest area of controversy involves community concern about potential impacts, 
particularly related to air quality, of increased industrial activity near the Bay view - Hunters Point 
neighborhood. In particular, community groups and residents have expressed concern over existing and 
future cardio-i^espiratory health effects related to emissions from project components and other 
development in the neighborhood. Other concerns expressed in responses to the Notice of Preparation 
for the SEIR included questions about the mix of land uses, in particular related to whether housing 
should be included on one or more sites in or near the project area, and whether one or more project 
components could conflict with potential future housing and/or commercial development. 

D. MITIGATION MEASURES (p. 143) 

This section includes mitigation measures for topics analyzed in this SEIR. Additional mitigation 
measures from the 1997 Waterfront Plan EIR are included in Chapter FV, p. 143. 

TRANSPORTATION 

MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN THIS SEIR 

B.l To mitigate 2015 conditions, monitor traffic level of sen'ice (LOS) conditions at the intersections 
listed below in Table S-1. At such time as warranted by traffic conditions (i.e.. a degradation of 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-27 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



the p.m. peak-hour service level to an unacceptable LOS E or F), institute the identified 
improvements or implement another measure determined at that time to be adequate to mitigate the 
degradation in level of service. 

TABLE S-1 

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE 



2015 Level of Service 
A.M. Peak Hr. P.M. Peak Hr. 

Project LOSw/ Project LOSw/ 
Intersection Mitigation Measure LOS Mitig. LOS Mitig. 



Third / 25th 
Streets t 



nUnois / 25th 

Streets tt 
Pennsylvania/ . 

1-280 SB 

On-Ramp ft 
Pennsylvania / 

Cesar Chavez 

Streets 
Third / C^sar 

Chavez Streets 



Illinois / C6sar 
Chavez Streets 



Amador Street / 
Cargo Way 



Restripe the east- and westbound approaches to 
provide left-tutn lanes. 

Revise signal timing to provide protected east- and 
westbound left-turn phases. 

Install traffic signal. 
Install traffic signal. 



• Reconstruct the roadway to provide an exclusive 
northbound right-turn lane ("free" right-turn). 

• Add a second northbound left-tum lane and an 
additional lane in each direction to the western 
approach on Cesar Chivez Street. (This would 
require the acquisition of additional right-of-way on 
Third Street at the southeast comer of the intersection, 
where there is an existing building.) 

• Install traffic signal. 

• Restripe the northbound and southbound approaches 
to provide left-tum lanes and shared right-through 

' lanes. 

• Restripe the eastbound and westbound approaches to 
provide a shared left-through lane and a shared 
through-right lane. 

• Install traffic signal. 

• Restripe the southbound Amador Way approach to 
provide a left-tum lane, a shared left-through lane, and 
a right-tum lane. 



D 

B(C) 
B(C) 



D 



D 



A 
B 

D 

D 



t - Mitigation required only in p.m. peak hour. 

$ - LOS and delay reported for overall intersection; LOS in parentheses is for critical moveinent, when worse than 
overall LOS. 

SOURCE: Wilbur Smith Associates 



B.2 At such time as specific mixed-use or other non-industrial projects generating more than 100 daily 
vehicle trips are approved and occupied at the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity Area and the 
Pier 90-94 backlands, the Port shall develop a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Plan, 
and potentially a Transportation Management Agency (TMA) that would consist of Port staff. Port 
tenants, property owners, and project occupant?. The goals of the TSM Plan and the TMA shall be 



Case No. 1999.377E. 



S-28 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



to reduce, to the maximum feasible; extent, the use of single-occupancy automobile traffic and 
encourage other forms of travel to and from work, including transit, carpooling and ridesharing, 
bicycle, walking, and other means. ' . 

B.3 The Illinois Street bridge that is proposed by the Port would improve operating conditions at Third 
Street and Cargo Way to an acceptable level of service (LOS C in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in 
. the p.m. peak hour), compared to conditions without the proposed bridge. 

MEASURES FROM THE 1997 WATERFRONT PLAN FEIR, AS APPROVED BY THE 
PORT COMMISSION, JUNE 1997 (Included in the Project) 

B.4 The Port shall comply with requests from the Major Environmental Analysis section of the 

Planning Department to analyze intersection levels of service for existing and future conditions at 
intersections that may reasonably be expected to be affected by each future development project, 
and shall identify and implement appropriate mitigation measures. 

Any such transportation analysis would need to be coordinated with monitoring of the Congestion 
Management Program network, conducted biennially by the San Francisco County Transportation 
Authority as the designated Congestion Management Agency for San Francisco County. Within 
the WLUP Project Area, The Embarcadero, King, Third and Fourth Streets are all included on the 
Congestion Management Program network. A number of intersecting streets (North Point. Bay, 
Broadway, Washington, Clay, Cesar Chavez, and Evans west of Third) are also included on the 
CMP network. The Authority would conduct monitoring activities along these facilities, but only 
in the context of determining changes in Level of Service for arterial segments (not for individual 
intersections). Degradation of the Level of Service for one or more individual intersections within 
an arterial segmient, to Level of Service "F' or to below some other designation deemed to be 
acceptable, could alisp degrade the segment Level of Service. The degree of impact to the segment 
may not be sufficient for the Transportation Authority to identify a "deficiency" under the CMP 
. process (Level of Service "F" for the entire segment), even though the Port or City could impose 
ntiitigation requirements for developers of projects that would have a significant impact on 
individual intersections. Based on the transportation analysis for this EIR, cumulative 
■ development along the Waterfront might cause degradation of a particular segment of the CMP 
network to fall to "F," thereby triggering a finding of deficiency requiring formulation of a 
Deficiency Plan, and implementation of that Plan under the CMP processes identified by the 
Transportation Authority. The Authority could, in this circumstance, identify the Port as the lead 
agency for development of the Deficiency Plan and for implementation of any corrective 
measures, and the Port could require sponsors of specific development projects that contribute to 
cumulative congestion to participate in improvement and mitigation measures. ( 7997 FEIR 
Measure DA) 

B.5 To help induce shifts from Vehicles to transit and thereby partially mitigate local intersection 
impacts and regional highway impacts, the Port could require and/or institute Transportation 
Demand Management Programs among developers of major trip generators, as a condition of lease 
approval. This would apply in particular to future Port development at Pier 70 and the Pier 90-94 
backlands. 

Such programs typically target primarily commute trips, with various educational, assistance and 
incentives measures to encourage carpooling and vanpooling. and transit use. These measures may 
be accompanied by such "disincentives" to. low-occupant private vehicle use as restricting the 



Case No. 1999377E 



S-29 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



amounts and/or location of parking made available to employees, and charging higher fees for all- 
day parking. Also typical are measures designed to shift time of commute travel to the "shoulders" 
of the peak, and/or to encourage less trip making through alternative work schedules and 
telecommuting. The effectiveness of these programs is variable, but they are most appropriate and 
effective when there are substantial constraints to vehicular travel, circulation and storage coupled 
with suitable options such as excellent transit accessibility. San Francisco in general, and its 
downtown and portions of the waterfront in particular, exhibit this combination of factors. 

The Port could also design and implement similar programs which would target non-commute 
travel. An example of the type of measure which might be included is the issuance of discount 
admission to some uses, or reductions in the price of services and/or merchandise, upon 
presentation of a valid transit transfer or other proof of transit use payment. Additionally, a free 
shuttle along The Embarcadero could be a part of this type of program, and would help to alleviate 
local auto congestion. (1997 FEIR Measure D-?) 

AIR QUALITY 

Measure B.3, above, would reduce but not eliminate the project's contribution to potentially significant 
air quality impacts. The mitigation measures in this section would further reduce but not eliminate the 
project's contribution to potentially significant air quality impacts. 

MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT 

C.l Each of the Industry Group construction aggregate industry project components, which would 
represent "stationary sources" of particulate emissions, shall include "best available control 
technology" (BACT) to control emissions, consistent with current regulations. For aggregate- 
handling operations (Bode Gravel, Mission Valley Rock, RMC Pacific, British Pacific 
Aggregates), this includes maintaining a moisture content in the aggregate that is high enough to 
eliminate PM-10 "fugitive" emissions (wind-blown dust that could otherwise escape into the 
surrounding air). A water spray system shall be installed at each aggregate-handling facility, 
including Bode Gravel, Mission Valley Rock, RMC Pacific, and British Pacific Aggregates. Fine 
aggregate material (sand) shall be maintained with a moisture content of approximately 5 percent, 
because such material with a moisture content of 4.5 percent or more produces virtually no fugitive 
emissions. Coarse aggregate (gravel) shall be kept damp on the surface, which would also 
effectively eliminate fugitive dust. Aggregate shall be stored in bunkers, rather than open piles, 
with water spray (including the use of surfactants, as necessary, to bind the water and dust to the 
aggregate) applied to maintain adequate moisture content to control emissions. ISG Resources, 
which would handle fly ash, a finer, more powdery material than aggregate, shall install BACT 
dust collection equipment to accommodate truck and rail transport and shall use pneumatic 
equipment to control dust emissions during the transfer of fly ash. 

C.2 The asphalt plant proposed by Mission Valley Rock (and potentially the British Pacific asphalt 

plant) shall include controls on the drum mixer where the asphalt cement and aggregate are mixed. 
Drum mixer(s) shall be fired with natural gas, consistent with Best Available Control Technology 
(BACT) recommendations, and particulate emissions from the aggregate drying and mixing 
process shall be controlled with a fabric filter, also consistent with BACT. Such filters can achieve 
control efficiency of greater than 99 percent. , 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-30 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



C.3 Consistent with the City's Clean Air Program (established by Ordinance 258-99, adopted 

October 15, 1999), it is City policy to "foster, promote, and encourage the use of low emission 
[alternative fuel vehicles] and [zero emission vehicles] by developing infrastructures to support the 
use of these vehicles." Under the ordinance, the City is to (1) assess the need for a network of 
natural gas fueling stations accessible to the public; (2) site and develop at least five such facilities, 
by public and/or private entities; (3) install 50 publicly accessible electric vehicle charging stations 
in City garages, lots, or other sites; (4) develop a plan for additional charging stations and related 
infrastructure; (5) buy. and lease ultra-low and zero emission vehicles for City department use; (6) 
identify and convert diesel bus Unes to electric service; (7) develop a plan to phase out older diesel 
buses; (8) develop a plan and incentives to encourage larger private vehicle fleets to convert their 
fleets to very low or zero emission vehicles; and (9) develop a car sharing program in high density 
neighborhoods. ' ^ 

Consistent with the City's Clean Air Program, the Port shall require that all tenants make a good 
. faith effort to engage in operational practices sensitive to the enviroimient and the neighboring 
.community. In furtherance of this, the Port shall require that tenants operating a fleet of vehicles 
investigate the potential for use of low- or zero emission vehicles and implement measures to 
reduce vehicle emissions to the maximuni feasible extent. Options may include, but not 
: necessarily, be limited to, the use of low-emission diesel fuel (including low-sulfur diesel); the use 
of catalytic particulate traps for dresel-powered engines that are cturently under study by the 
California Air Resources Board; the use of other emerging technologies to reduce diesel particulate 
emissions; and use of electric vehicles. Th6 Port shall also require that tenants operating diesel- 
. powered stationary equipment investigate similar options. Tenants shall investigate retrofitting 
existing engines and purchase of new engines. The Port shall further require that tenants who 
work with independent trucking contractors encourage those contractors to make similar efforts, 
including, if reasonably feasible, providing such truckers with economic incentives to retrofit 
equipment or take other measures as may be necessary to use low-emission fuels. As an economic 
incentive to minimize diesel emissions fifom Port property, the Port shall contribute towards the 
incremental costs incurred by its tenants for Port-approved equipment and improvements in 
fiartherance of this measure. Finally, the Port shall establish a schedule by which tenants described 
above shall report to the Port on progress in investigating reduced-emission engines. 

C.4 At such time as specific mixed-use or other non-industrial projects generating more than 100 daily 
vehicle trips are approved and occupied at the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity Area and the 
Pier 90-94 backlands, the Port shall develop a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Plan, 
and potentially a Transportation Management Agency (TMA) that would consist of Port staff. Port 
tenants, property owners, and project occupants. The goals of the TSM Plan and the TMA shall be 
to reduce, to the maximum feasible extent, the use of single-occupancy automobile traffic and 
encourage other forms of travel to and firom work, including transit, carpooling and ridesharing, 
bicycle, walking, and other means. 

REVISED MEASURE FROM THE 1997 WATERFRONT PLAN FEIR, AS APPROVED BY 
THE PORT COMMISSION, JUNE 1997 (Included in the Project) 

Q.5 The Port shall require that project sponsors direct construction contractors to implement a dust 
abatement program to reduce the contribution of project construction to local PM- 10 
concentrations. Elements of this program, which is currently applied to all Port tenants, include 
the following: 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-31 

ESA 990267 



Sour hem Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



• Water internal roadways and unpaved construction areas just prior to the morning and 
evening peak traffic periods (to limit the potential for major roadway traffic to entrain dust), 
limit speeds to 10 mph, and sweep paved internal roads after the evening peak period. 

• In addition, water active sites (e.g., where demolition, excavation or other earth work is 

. underway) at least twice per day. Increase the frequency of watering when wind speeds 
exceed 15 miles per hour. Suspend all excavating and grading operation when instantaneous 
gusts exceed 25 miles per hour. 

• Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 

• Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply soil binders to exposed stocJcpiles of sand, gravel, 
aad dirt: 

• ■ Install gravel at construction equipment entrances to unpaved areas to prevent tracking of 

dirt and mud onto streets. 

• Sweep paved access roads, parking areas, and construction staging areas, at the end of day 
(with water sweepers), and sweep adjacent City streets if any visible soil material is carried 
over to these streets. 

• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials. Maintain at least six inches 
of freeboard between the top of the load and the top of the trailer. 

• Sweep up dirt or debris spilled onto paved surfaces immediately to reduce resuspension of 
particulate matter through vehicle movement over these surfaces. 

• Designate a person or persons to oversee the implementation of a comprehensive dust, 
control program and to increase watering, as necessary. 

• Maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize particulates from exhaust 
emissions. During construction, require contractors to operate trucks and equipment only 
when necessary. Equipment should be kept in good condition and well-tuned, to minimize 
exhaust emissions. . ; • 

Ordinance 175-91, passed by the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 1991, requires that non-potable 
water be used for dust control activities. Therefore, the project sponsor shall require that the 
cbntractor(s) obtain reclaimed water from the Clean Water Program for this purpose. 

This mitigation measure also Would reduce demolition-related impacts regarding lead paint 
chips/lead dust. The project sponsor shall also be required to comply with Chapter 36 of the 
San Francisco Building Code, Work Practices for Exterior Lead-Based Paint, enforced by the 
San Francisco Department of Building Inspection. ' 

No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce the project's total regional 
emissions to a level below Bay Area Air Quality Management District thresholds, or eliminate the 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-32 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



project's contribution to potentially significant cumulative impacts from all existing (unquantified) and 
future (unknown) emissions sources. ' 

HYDROLOGY > 
MEASURES INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PROJECT 

D.l For construction sites of less than five" acres of disturbed area, the contractors shall be required to 
prepare and implement a Storin Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) similar to that required 
under the statewide General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction 
Activity. The SWPPP would include site^specific information to identify and evaluate sources of 
pollutants associated with industrial activities and to identify and implement site-specific best 
. management practices to reduce or prevent pollutants associated with industrial activities in 
' stormwater discharges. Best management practices may be non-structural (e.g., activity schedules; 
maintenance procedures, prohibitions of practices) or slaiictural (e.g., treatment measures, runoff 
controls, overhead coverage). Elements of the SWPPP shall include the following: 

.• ■ measures for erosion and' sediment controls 

• . methods for construction waste handling and disposal, and 

• post-construction erosion and sediment control requirements. - 

D.2 To minimize the potential for water quality degradation from stormwater runoff, the Port shall 
require that all tenants and developers, including interim lessees such as the Industry Group 
members, implement source control Best Management Practices consistent with those identified in 
the Industrial / Commercial Storm \yater Best Management Practices Handbook (Stormwater 
Quality Task Force, 1993), Measures shall include, but are not limited to, the following (some of 
. which are proposed as part of one or more Industry Group components): 

• prohibiting discharge of process Water to storm drains; 

• for Industry Group components that would use water in dust control, creation of settling basins 
or simile features that would a^low sediment to be removed from water prior to reuse and/or 
discharge; 

• employing appropriate containment measures for fuel, asphalt cement, and other hazardous 
materials stored on-site, to capture potential spills (including at on-site fueling areas); 

• ' installing and maintaining grease and sediment traps at vehicle maintenance and washing 
areas to prevent contaminated runoff from entering the storm drains or Bay; 

• installation of sediment containment systems around outdoor aggregate storage facilities to 
limit sediment entering stormwater runoff, and covering such storage areas if feasible to 
limit stormwater infiltration; 

• creation of a designated wash-out area for concrete trucks to prevent concrete slurry from 
reaching the Bay; and 

■ • cover any open conveyors in use over the Bay (i.e., between piers and ships and barges) to 
minimize the potential for direct sediment spill to the Bay. 



Case No. 1999,377E 



$-33 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



REVISED MEASURES FROM THE 1997 WATERFRONT PLAN FEIR, AS APPROVED 
BY THE PORT COMMISSION, JUNE 1997 (Included in the Project) 

D.3 As part of permit and lease requirements for future Port development projects, runoff from 

stormwater at new or re-developed facilities located outside of the City's combined sewer system 
shall be, at a minimum, subject to appropriate treatment such as on-site oil/water separators and/or 
sediment traps, depending on the nature of the pollutants that may be in the runoff , so that 
•stormwater runoff is treated prior to discharge and that there is no direct, untreated discharge to the 
Bay or Islais Creek. Stormwater riinoff from future Port developrrient sites shall not be directed to 
the City's combined system, as originally contemplated in the Waterfront Plan EIR, and the 
volume of stormwater flows from the project area to the City's, combined sewer system shall 
remain the same as at present, unless the increased flow to the combined system would, result in no 
additional volume of combined sewer overflows. 

D.4 Sponsors of individual project components, including members of the Industry Group, shall be 
. required to implement appropriate Best Management Practices for stormwater pollution prevention 
throughout the life of each lease and shall be required to monitor stormwater quality in accordance 
with the requirement of the statewide General Permit for Discharge of Industrial Stormwater. 

D. 5 Sponsors of individual project components, including members of the Industry Group, shall 

conduct water quality monitoring during constriiction of facilities on or adjacent to the Bay to 
minimize effects of construction activities on water quality. In order to minimize potential for 
spills, construction materials or debris to enter the Bay arid affect water quality, site specific 
construction methods and precautions, such as limiting activities on days of strong winds, could be 
included in the contractor's construction specifications to iriinimize effects on water quality. 
Demolition of structures with lead-based paint should include physical precautions to ensure that 
paint dust and chips do not enter the Bay. 

HAZARDS 

MEASURES INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PROJECT 

E. l Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials or Petroleum Products 

. In accordance with the Hazardous. Materials Ordinance, the sponsor of each Industry Group or Port 
project component shall ensure that a Hazardous Materials Business Plan is prepared for each of 
the project components involving the use of petroleum products or hazardous materials. The plan 
would specify methods for handling and storage of these including contaiimient, site layouts, and 
emergency response and notification procedures for a spill or release. 

The project sponsor(s) shall eiisure that a Spill Control arid Countermeasure Plan is prepared for 
any project involving the aboveground storage of petroleum products. The plan would include . 
requirements for appropriate spill containment or equipment to divert spills from sensitive areas, a 
discussion of facility-specific requirements fbr the storage system, inspections arid a record 
keeping system, security for the system, and personnel training. The project sponsor(s) would also 
comply with the state requirement that above-ground storage tanks subject to federal regulations 
are registered with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-34 

ESA 990267. 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



E.2 Hazardous Materials in Soil 

E.2a Because the Bode Gravel and Mission Valley Rock projects would be constructed bay ward of the 
historic high tide line and would involve the excavation of at least 50 cubic yards of soil, the 

- . " sponsors of those components shall ensure that the contractors comply with the requirements of 
Article 22A, "Analyzing the Soil for Hazardous Wastes.". In accordance with the approved site 
mitigation report for this project component, the site would be capped with an asphalt or concrete 
slab and structures. Upon completion of capping, a certification report would be prepared to 
document construction activities and a maintenance report would be prepared specifying 
procedures to be followed to control exposure to the subsurface soil following construction of the 
proposed project. These reports would be submitted to the San Francisco Department of Public 
Health for review and approval to ensure regulatory compliance. 

For any other Industry Group or Port-sponsored project components for which Article 22A would 
apply (including the Illinois Street bridge, if applicable), a site history report, soil investigation, 
and soil analysis report Would be completed to identify potential- hazardous materials at this site. 

If indicated by the results of the soil investigation, the project sponsor would ensure that the 
contractors for each project prepare a Site Mitigation Report in compliance with Article 22A if 
warranted by the levels of hazardous materials identified in the soil. The plan would include 
measures for the handling of soil produced during excavation, to control dust and runoff during 
construction, and to characterize soil for off-site disposal purposes. Upon completion of 
constructiori, the project Sponsor would ensure that the construction contractors prepare a 
• certification report certifying that either (1) no h^ardous wastes present in the soil present an 
unacceptable risk and that no "mitigations are required; or (2) all mitigation measures specified in 
the site mitigation report have been completed and that completion of the mitigation measures has 
been verified through follow up sampling and analysis, if required. All reports would be submitted 
to the San Francisco Department of Public Health (DPH) for review and approval to ensure 
regulatory compliance. 

The project sponsor shall prepare and submit to DPH a site-specific Safety and Health Plan (SHP) 
that would address worker safety concerns resulting fi-om potential contaminants on the site. The 
SHP would include provisions for responding to unknown hazardous materials site conditions that 
could be encouritered during construction. 

If the soil investigation demonstrates that hazardous wastes present in the soil could be at levels 
that pose an unacceptable health risk, the project sponsor would ensure that appropriate site 
investigations and risk evaluations are performed to evaluate potential human health risks related 
to any hazardous substances left in the soil or groundwater after completion of construction. The 
investigations, risk evaluations, and any required remedial actions would be implemented under 
the oversight of the appropriate regulatory agency(ies) to ensure compliance with applicable laws 
and that the public health and safety are protected. 

E.2b For all projects where, subsurface contamination is identified, the project sponsor would ensure that 
frOm the time that ground surfaces are exposed until the time that all remedial activities have been 
completed, a fence is erected around the area where chemicals have been identified in the soil and 
site access is restricted to necessary personnel. Warning signs prohibiting access by the general 
public onto the project site would be posted at all construction access points. Access would be 
limited to authorized personnel only. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-35 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



Dust-control measures applicable for air quality impacts would also minimize the potential public 
health impact associated with dust emissions and air quality pollutants. (See also Air Quality 
Mitigation Measures.) 

MEASURE PROPOSED BY THE PORT AS PART OF THE PROJECT 

E.3 Soil Disposal 

The Port shall contract for, or require that Port tenant(s) contract for, disposal of any portion of the 
soil pile on the Bode and Mission Valley Rock sites at Pier 92 that cannot be reused, with approval 
of the San Francisco Department of Public Health, for construction projects in accordance with 
applicable waste disposal regulations. 

REVISED MEASURE FROM THE 1997 WATERFRONT PLAN FEIR, AS APPROVED BY 
THE PORT COMMISSION, JUNE 1997 (Included in the Project) 

E. 4 Hazardous Building Materials 

The project sponsor for each Industry Group component and each future Port development 
component involving demolition or renovation of existing facilities shall ensure that hazardous 
building material survey (s) for asbestos, PCB -containing equipment (including transformers, 
elevator equipment, and other applicable equipment), hydraulic oils, fluorescent lights, and lead- 
based paint is conducted prior to the start of demolition or renovation, for each such project 
component. The survey(s) would be completed by a Registered Environmental Assessor or a 
registered engineer prior to construction or demolition activities. If any friable asbestos-containing 
materials or lead-containing materials are identified, adequate abatement practices, such as 
containment and/or removal, would be implemented prior to demolition or renovation. Detailed 
requirements for the assessment, abatement, and disposal of hazardous building materials are presented 
in Appendix F. Any PCB -ccmtaining equipment or fluorescent lights containing mercury vapors 
would also be removed and disposed of properly. 

Any hazardous materials discovered through building survey(s) would be abated according to 
federal, state, and local laws and regulations.. In particular, the project sponsors will be required to 
comply BAAQMD requirements for the removal of friable and non-friable asbestos containing 
materials as well as other requirements of Cal/OSHA, BAAQMD and the Contractors Licensing 
Board for abatement of asbestos prior to demolition. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

REVISED MEASURES FROM THE 1997 WATERFRONT PLAN FEIR, AS APPROVED 
BY THE PORT COMMISSION, JUNE 1997 (Included in the Project) 

F. la The Port could limit dredging operations and other construction activity in connection with the 

Illinois Street Bridge to between March 1 and November 30 to eliminate any potentially significant 
impacts of dredging or pier repair/replacement on the Pacific herring fishery. The Port would 
specify in construction contracts that, in exceptional cases where dredging operations or bridge 
construction must conflict with the herring season, the following conditions must be fulfilled: 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-36 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



■ • A professional fisheries biologist or other individual sufficiently competent to identify 

herring spawning activity would monitor the project site daily at any time when dredging or 
other in- water construction activity were taking place. 

• • In the event that the on-site monitor detects herring spawning at, or within 200 meters of 
dredging or other in- water construction activity, the monitor would immediately notify the 
Environmental Review Officer and the project construction manager, who would halt the 
dredging or other construction activity for a minimum of 14 days, or until the monitor 
• determines that the hatch has been connpleted and larval herring have left the site. The 
dredging or other construction activity may resume thereafter. 

F.lb Project sponsor-s of Industry Group project components would similarly limit dredging operations 
and pier repair/replacement to between March 1 and November 30 to eliminate any potentially 
significant impacts of dredging or pier repair/replacement on the Pacific herring fishery. In 
exceptional cases where dredging operations or major pier repair/replacement operations (beyond 
routine maintenance) must conflict with the herring season, the project sponsor(s) would consult 
with the permitting agencies, including but iiot necessarily limited to the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, State Department of Fish and Game,~ 
and Regional Water Quality Control Board. The sponsor(s) would comply with specific 
monitoring requirements established by these and other agencies to avoid impacts on the herring 
fishery; . . . ' . ' . 

F.2 Prior to demolition or renovation of any abandoned building between August 15 and October 15, 
or between February 1 and May 1, project sponsor(s) would ensure that survey(s) are conducted 
during the same period by a qualified bat biologist. If no Townsend's western big-eared bats are 
found during the survey (s), no additionalmitigation is required. 

If Townsend's western big-eared bat, a California Species of Special Concern, is found during an 
August - October survey, appropriate exclusion devices approved by CDFG & USFWS should be 
installed by a qualified bat biologist. Once the bats have been excluded, demolition may occur. 

If Townsend's western big-eared bats' are found during a February - May survey, demolition 
should not take place until the end of the nursery season in August. Exclusion devices should be 
placed by a qualified bat biologist in accordance with CDFG and USFWS. 

E. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT (p. 168) 

The Waterfront Plan EIR anialyzed two alternative development outcomes that could occur under the 
Waterfront JLand Use Plan. Those alternatives are hereby incorporated by reference. This SEIR does not 
evaluate an off-site alternative that would place the proposed Industry Group uses elsewhere in 
San Francisco, because Port jurisdiction is limited to a band along the City's bayfront. However, the 
alternatives analyzed below do include both differing combinations of Industry Group uses and 
variations on the assumptions concerning future Port development to provide for a range of potential 
outcomes for the Southern Waterfront subarea, consistent with the adopted Waterfront Land Use Plan. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-37 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



ALTERNATIVE A: NO PROJECT 



I. SUMMARY 



This alternative would entail no change to the project area, which would "remain in its existing condition. 
None of the Industry Group project components would be implemented, and the Illinois Street 
Multimodal Bridge would not be built. Because several of the Industry Group components are proposed 
in response to the need for Industry Group members to relocate from existing locations, this altemative 
would necessarily involve displacement of those uses elsewhere in San Francisco, including the existing 
Bode Gravel and RMC Pacific concrete plants and the Coach USA bus operation. Those uses could 
relocate elsewhere in the City, although particularly in the case of the concrete plants, the potential 
locations are limited by the heavy industrial nature of the uses. It would be speculative, however, to 
project potential relocation sites for these uses, which could be forced to move out of San Francisco 
under this altemative. 

Also under this altemative, the future development envisioned for the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity 
Area, the Pier 70 Maritime Reserve area, the Pier 90-94 backlands, and the Westem Pacific site (except 
for the already approved Muni Light Rail storage and ihaintenance facility) would not necessarily occur 
as described in this SEIR. There might still be some development on these sites in the future, consistent 
with the Waterfront Land Use Plan, and subsequent environmental review could be required if projects 
were to differ substantially from those described in this document. Increased cargo shipping could also 
occur in the Southem Waterfront, consistent with the Waterfront Plan. 

This altemative would result in little or no short-term (Phase I) increase in automobile or tmck travel, as 
would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Long-term (2015) effects on local 
intersections would be less substantial than would occur with the project, but could still be significant, 
depending on the volume of future development on Port lands and increased cargo shipping. Therefore, 
this altemative would result in significant traffic impacts in 2015, although to a lesser degree than would 
the project. Emissions of criteria air pollutants would be less substantial than with the project, 
particularly in the short-term. By 2015, depending on the increase in cargo shipping at the Port, 
emissions of NO^ could be significant, as with the project, although the volume of emissions would be 
less. This altemative would also result in a significant cumulative effect related to air quality. Like the 
project, however, this altemative would result in less-than-signiflcant effect with regard to local 
concentrations of carbon monoxide, PM-10, and diesel particulate. Effects related to hydrology would 
be less substantial than those of the project, and would be less than significant with the mitigation 
measures revised from the Waterfront Plan EIR to control stormwater mnoff. It is likely that future 
development on Port lands would result in increase in impervious surface that could result in an increase 
in stormwater runoff to the Bay, although less than with the project. Similarly, the No Project 
Altemative would result in less potential for exposure to and accidental release of hazardous materials 
than would the project, although any potential impacts would continue to be mitigated, as with the 
project, by reliance on existing regulations, including Article 22A of the City Public Health Code. As 
with the project, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



. S-38 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



The No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior to the project because it would avoid 
much of the environmental impact of the project. The No Project Alternative would not meet the project 
objectives. • . '. ' - ; " 

ALTERNATIVE B: REDUCED-SCALE ALTERNATIVE 

This alternative would include all Industry Group facilities with the exception of the proposed Mission 
Valley Rock asphalt plant and the Coach USA bus storage facility, as well as those shipping-related 
componeiits that are proposed to provide for an anticipated shift in the supply of construction aggregate 
from local sources to out-of-area sources. Included would be two concrete plants (Bode Gravel at 
Pier 92 and RMC Pacific at Pier 80); Mission Valley Rock's aggregate import terminal at Pier 92 (but 
not Mission Valley's proposed asphalt plant; British Pacific Aggregates aggregate. shipping aiid storage 
operation at Pier 94 (but not BPA's potential future concrete and asphalt plants); ISG Resources fly ash 
storage facility (in the former grain silos at Pier 90); and Waste Resource Technologies' construction 
materials recycling operation, at Pier 70. Not included in this alternative would be the Mission Valley 
Rock asphalt plant, the potential future BPA concrete and asphalt plants, or Coach USA's bus storage 
and maintenance facility at Pier 96. Under this alternative, concrete production would remain at the 
2003 level through 2015. 

This alteniative would also include construction of the Illinois Street Intermodal Bridge, proposed by the 
Port. However, less future development would occur on other Port lands than with the proposed project. 
Alternative B would include less of an increase in cargo shipping at Pier 80 and Piers 94-96, compared to 
the project, and would not include development of the Piers 90-94 backlands. Alternative B would 
include expansion of the Port's dredge material handling site at Pier 94; development of the Pier 70 
mixed-use opportunity area. and the Pier 70 maritime reserve area; and development of the Western 
Pacific property. . 

This alternative would result in less traffic generation, particularly with Phase 11 (2015) development, 
than would the project. With this alternative. Phase I daily vehicle trip generation would be about 
20 percent less than with the project (Industry Group vehicle trip generation would be about 30 percent 
less)". In 2015, Phase II daily vehicle trip generation would be almost 35 percent less than with the 
project, and peak-hour trip generation, compared to that with the project, would be about 50 percent less 
in the a.m. peak hour and about 85 percent less in the p.m. peak hour. With this alternative's decreased 
traffic volumes, conipared to the project, intersection levels of service in 2015 would be improved, 
compared to conditions with Phase II project development. In the a.m. peak hour, only two intersections 
would operate at F - Mariposa Street at the southbound 1-280 on-ramp and at the northbound 1-280 
off-ramp. These intersections would also be at LOS F with the project. Three other intersections would 
operate at LOS E. Impacts could be mitigated at one of these five intersections. Three other 
intersections that woiild operate at LOS F with the project would instead operate at LOS D or better with 
Alternative B, In the p.m. peak hour, only three intersections would operate at LOS E or F under 
Alternative B, compared to 1 1 intersections with the project. Impacts at these three intersections could 



Case No. 199937.7E 



S-39 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



be mitigated to LOS D or better. Thus, like the proposed project. Alternative B would result in 
significant unavoidable traffic impacts, although the impacts would be less substantial than those with 
the project. 

Near-term air quality impacts (2003) would be similar to, but slightly less than, those identified for the 
project, because the overall level of activity in Phase I would be similar under this alternative to that with 
the project. By 2015, the overall emissions of criteria pollutants generated by this alternative would be 
reduced, compared to the project. In particular, annual emissions of NO^ from future cargo shipping 
activity at the Port would be about half of those with the project, because the annual volume of cargo 
handled would be about half that with the project. However, criteria pollutant emissions would not be 
reduced to a less-than-significant level, and would be significant, as with the project. Local air quality 
impacts (concentrations of carbon monoxide, respirable particulate matter, and diesel particulate) would 
be less-than-significant, as with the project, and would be would be incrementally less substantial. 
Cumulative air quality effects would remain significant, although this alternative's contribution woiild be 
less than that of the project. 

Effects related to hydrology and to hazardous materials would be similar to impacts of the project 
because, while Alternative B would have a reduced level of concrete production and reduced cargo 
shipping, compared to the project, this alternative would include development on virtually all of the same 
sites as would the project, with the only exception being the Pier 90-94 backlands. With regard to 
hydrology, therefore, this alternative would result in a reduction of about 38 percent in new stormwater 
runoff, compared to the project (and an increase of 18 percent compared to existing conditions), and the 
impact would be less-than-significant with mitigation, as with the project. Concerning hazardous 
materials, because Alternative B would not include development on the Pier 90-94 backlands, there 
would be no effects related to development on the former landfill at Pier 94. Other effects of 
Alternative B with regard to hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation, as they 
would with the project. Effects on biological resources vyould be essentially the same as those of the 
project, and would be less than significant, because this alternative, like the project, would include the 
Illinois Street bridge and associated rnitigation. 

Because it would result in less substantial traffic impacts than would the project, and would have slightly 
less impact on air quality than would the project, the Reduced Density Alternative would be considered 
the Enviroiimentally Superior Alternative. 

ALTERNATIVE C: RESIDENTIAL USE FUTURE SCENARIO 

With regard to Phase I, this alternative would be the same as the proposed project, in that the Industry 
Group project components would be implemented, and the Illinois Street Intermodal Bridge would be 
constructed. However, in Phase 11, Alternative C would include residential uses at the Pier 70 Mixed- 
Use Opportunity Area, and would also include less office / research and development space there, 
compared to the proposed project. At the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity Area, this alternative would 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-40 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I. SUMMARY 



include 500 residential units and approximately 200,000 square feet of office / research and development 
use would be included, compared to 610,000 square feet of such uses under the project.. Retail space, at 
100,000 square feet, and public access / recreational uses, would be unchanged from the project. Other 
future Port development would be the same as with the project. 

Effects of Alternative C would be generally siimilar to those of the proposed project. Overall daily 
vehicle trip generation for Phase I arid Phase II combined would be about 2.5 percent less than with the 
project, while peak-hour vehicle trips would increase slightly, by about 2.5 percent in the a.m. peak hour 
and almost 6 percent in the p.m, peak-hour. However, the changes, which would total fewer than 
50 additional vehicles in the ^.m. peak hour and just over 100 additional vehicles in the p.m. peak hour, 
would not be substantial enough to result in changes in the 2015 level of service at most intersections. 
For those intersections were level of service would be different, most would improve, compared to the 
■project, except at Third Street and Cargo Way, where this alternative would result in LOS E in the p.m. 
peak hour, compared to LOS D with the project. . 

Air quality impacts would be incrementally less substantial than those with the project, owing to the 
slight decrease in daily vehicle trip generation. However, regional effects would be significant, as with 
the project, both on a project-specific and cumulative basi^. Like the project, this alternative would not 
result in a project- specific significant effect on local air quality impacts (concentrations of carbon 
monoxide, respirable particula.te matter, and diesel particulate). Also like the project, cumulative local 
air quality effects would be unknown, but would be considered significant with this altemative, and the 
contribution would be similar- to that of the project. 

Effects related to hydrology and hazardous materials would be virtually unchanged from those of the 
project,, because the areas to be developed and the amount of new impervious surface would be the same. 
Because Altemative C would include residential units at the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity Area, 
remediation of sites where past use of hazardous materials has resulted in contamination would be 
required By law to achieve a higher standard of cleanup. 

Effects on biological resources would be essentially the same as those of the project, and would be less 
than significant, because this altemative, like the project, would include construction of the Illinois Street 
bridge. Depending on the specific configuration of the development at the Pier 70 Mixed-Use 
Opportunity Area, site specific noise analysis, and potentially analysis of nighttime lighting, would be 
required to determine whether 24-hour operations at the Pier 70 shipyard could prove annoying to 
residents at thp Mixed-Use Opportunity Area. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



S-4i 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



CHAPTER II 



PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



This SEIR analyzes a series of development proposals - the Industry Group project components - in the 
portion of the Port of San Francisco jurisdiction known as the Southern Waterfront (generally, Pier 70 
south to India Basin). This SEIR also analyzes a Port-sponsored proposal to construct a rail and truck 
bridge across Islais Creek to improve access between the Port's major maritime terminals. Finally, this 
SEIR evaluates, at a lesser level of detail, potential future development on other Port lands in the 
Southern Waterfront to provide a conservative SEIR analysis although there are no such proposed 
projects at this time. Specific locations of the project components analyzed in this SEIR are described 
below in Section C, Project Characteristics and Approvals Required. 

This SEIR will undergo a public comment period as noted on the cover, including a public hearing 
before the Planning Commission on the Draft SEIR. Following the public comment period, responses to 
written and oral conraients will be prepared and published in a Draft Summary of Comments and 
Responses document. The Draft SEIR will be revised as appropriate and, with the Draft Summary of 
Comments and Responses, presented to the Planning Commission for certification as to accuracy, 
objectivity, and completeness. No approvals or permits may be issued before the Final SEIR is certified. 



A. SITE LOCATION 

The Southern Waterfront consists of most of the land and pier area east of Illinois Street between 
Eighteenth Street and Cargo Way, land and pier area north of Cargo Way and east of Third Street, land 
north of Islais Creek and west to Indiana Street and south of Islais Creek and west to approximately 
Quint Street, and land north and south of India Basin, excluding areas outside of Port jurisdiction 
between 21st and 25th Streets and between Cesar Chavez (Army) and Marin Streets (see Figure 1). The 
Southern Waterfront is one of five subareas identified in the Port's Waterfront Land Use Plan, which was 
adopted by the Port Commission in 1997. 



B. PROJECT SPONSORS' OBJECTIVES 

The project sponsors are the Port of San Francisco and several maritime and industrial companies 
(collectively referred to as the "Industry Group"). 



Case No. 1999.377E 



1 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



PORT OBJECTIVES 

The Port of San Francisco is trustee for former State-owned lands between Fisherman's Wharf and India 
Basin, including the project area analyzed in this SEIR.^ Pursuant to the Burton Act, the Port's public 
trust responsibilities are to further fisheries, navigation, maritime commerce, natural resource protection 
and recreational facilities for public use. Following an extensive public planning process, in 1997 the 
Port adopted the Waterfront Land Use Plan, defining how the Port will carry out its land use 
responsibilities under the public trust. The Southem Waterfront, one of five waterfront subareas 
identified in the Waterfront Plan, is designated for existing or future expansion of commercial shipping 
and other maritime businesses. The Waterfront Plan also identifies open space areas in the Southem 
Waterfront, and three development opportunity areas where mixed-use commercial and maritime 
development could occur. In addition, the Waterfront Plan allows non-maritime interim uses for land 
designated for future maritime expansion areas. 

In light of the above, the Port's primary objective is to maintain and expand cargo shipping and maritime 
businesses at its existing terminals at Piers 80, 90-92, and 94-96 on the north and south sides of Islais 
Creek east of the existing Third Street Bridge, and the existing ship repair yard at Pier 70. This includes 
increases in shipment of container, breakbulk, dry bulk, liquid bulk, and neo-bulk,^ cargoes, up to an 
equivalent of approximately 250,000 TEU.^ The Port proposes construction of a rail and truck access 
bridge between the two terminals, extending south of Illinois Street, over Islais Creek to increase 
operational efficiencies and marketability of its north and south terminals, to provide direct rail access to 
the terminals, and reduce truck trips that otherwise would occur on city streets. The proposed Illinois 
Street bridge is described further on p. 19. 

Secondary objectives of the Port are to: 

• diversify its marketing efforts to increase utilization of its cargo terminals; 

• maximize the productivity of Port assets through interim use of property reserved for maritime 
expansion; and 

• allow development of non-maritime land uses that would be beneficial to the Port and compatible 
with maritime activities in areas that are surplus to long-term maritime needs. 



Certain sections of this SEDR, such as Transportation and Air Quality, incorporate an area of analysis that extends beyond 
Port land in order to fully capture potential environmental effects. 

Container cargo is shipped in metal containers, which are sealed, reusable metal boxes, generally 20 to 40 feet m length and 
able to hold about 20,000 to 40,000 pounds. Breakbulk (or bulk) cargo refers to loose cargo that is loaded into or unloaded 
from a ship's hold on pallets or in a cargo net. Dry bulk cargo refers to materials loaded via conveyors, spouts, or sccops. 
such as construction aggregates and grains. Liquid bulk refers to cargo carried in tanks, such as petroleum or other oils. 
Neobulk cargo refers to large, non-containerized items such as automobiles, rolls of newsprint, rolls of steel, and the like. 
Twenty-foot-equivalent-units. A TEU is equivalent to the volume of a 20-foot-long cargo container, assumed to be 
24,000 pounds of cargo. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



3 

ESA 990267 



Southern Watcrfronl SEIR 



n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



INDUSTRY GROUP OBJECTIVES 

Members of the Industry Group propose to build facilities primarily for the production, shipping, 
distribution, and recycling of materials used in the construction industry, including concrete, asphalt, fly 
ash, sand, and gravel. Also included is a materials recovery facility^ and a charter bus storage yard and 
service and repair facility. 

One of the primary objectives of the Industry Group is to meet the continuing demand for construction 
materials, including materials required for a series of major projects to be undertaken in and around 
San Francisco over the next several years, such as the reconstruction of the Bay Bridge approach 
between the Bridge and Fifth Street and the buildout of the Mission Bay Redevelopment Areas. 

Other objectives of one or more Industry Group members are to: 

• retain existing operations within San Francisco to allow continuing provision of ready-mix concrete 
in close proximity to sources of demand and avoid potential increased transportation costs if these 
existing operations were unable to remain in the City; 

• similarly, produce asphalt for the San Francisco market, which is now served from outside the City; 

• retain other existing operations in San Francisco that are being displaced by termination of leases;^ 

• facilitate ship-borne import of construction aggregates; 

• co-locate in proximity to one another to achieve maximum efficiency in import, distribution, and 
handling of construction aggregates; 

• retain existing employment and add new employment in San Francisco, and specifically in the 
southeastern part of the City; and 

• operate a construction/demolition material recovery facility in support of the City's goal of meeting 
state requirements to reduce solid waste generation and disposal. 

C. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED 

The "project" analyzed in this SEIR consists of a number of developments in three categories. The first 
consists of a number of proposed uses on Port property that would be implemented via leases with 
private industries (members of the Industry Group); the second category consists of a specific capital 
improvement project proposed by the Port; and the third represents potential long-term future 
development on currently unprogrammed areas of Port property on the Southern Waterfront. 

The development proposed by members of the Industry Group includes a number of construction- 
industry-related and other facilities on Port property, many of which would use cargo shipping as a 
means of transporting materials to and from those facilities. The capital improvement program proposed 
by the Port is construction of a rail and truck bridge across Islais Creek. The future development would 



A materials recovery facility (MRF) separates and processes recyclables from mixed waste and/or separates commingled 
recyclables. 

Of the seven Industry Group members, four must relocate due to impending lease terminations. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



4 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



potentially affect the Piers 90-94 backlands. Pier 70, and the Pier 70 Mixed Use Opportunity Area, as 
well as a portion of the former Western Pacific rail yard. Continuation of and growth in commercial 
shipping at the Port's Marine Terminals at Piers 80 and 94-96 is also considered part of the project. Each 
of these project components is discussed below. Because each component would be subject to its own 
approval action(s), a discussion of permits and required approval actions is provided following the 
description of each component. Discretionary approvals that relate to all project components, including 
the EIR certification process, are discussed following the description of the individual components. 

INDUSTRY GROUP PROJECTS 

Six private entities have proposed leasing portions of the Port of San Francisco's Southern Waterfront 
area and implementing development proposals, primarily related to the construction industry, and these 
project components make up the first category within the project description. Each of these project 
components would involve a project sponsor leasing property from the Port and making improvements 
on the leased site. In most cases, the lease would involve unimproved land that the sponsor would 
develop. In some cases, the individual sponsors would occupy one or more existing buildings on Port 
property with lease provisions for tenant-financed improvements to such buildings. 

Characteristics of the Industry Group project components are summarized in Table 1, p. 6. The locations 
of these individual components are shown in Figure 2, p. 8. 

All of the Industry Group project components would be developed on Port property. Because of 
conditions imposed upon the Port by the State of California when the state granted the Port title to its 
lands, land uses on Port property must generally be consistent with what is known as the "public trust 
doctrine." This requirement normally limits use of Port lands to commerce, navigation and fisheries, 
although short-term leases are permitted to lessees engaged in non-trust uses. While two of the Industry- 
Group members would have no maritime activity, and while the lease terms of the proposed uses would 
vary, for purposes of a conservative analysis of future conditions, this EER assumes that all uses analyzed 
herein will continue to at least the cumulative horizon year of 2015, a time frame that is consistent with 
other recently prepared environmental review documents in San Francisco. 

As noted, several of the Industry Group project components are designed to respond to anticipated 
demand for construction materials. Estimates of such demand, developed by the project sponsors, 
provide the basis for the magnitude of facilities and operations that would result from these project 
components. These market projections are discussed in Appendix A. 



Although the Port is negotiating with six potential Industry Group tenants, and this SEIR describes the Industry Group as 
having six components, one of the components would involve a joint lease with two operators. Bode Gravel and Mission 
Valley Rock (see Table 1, p. 6). Therefore, there are seven operators involved in the Industry Group. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



5 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



z 
o 



S 

u 

u 

Q 

H 
U 
Ed 
1^ 
O 



H 

H 



U 

H 

U 

o 



c 
_o 
'■3 
a 
u 
o 

Z 

z 
o 

o 

u 

ft. g 
^ s- 

» 2 
O 0- 

o 
>< 

VI 

Q 

Z 



T3 O 
T3 4) O 

o ca 



T3 

c 

o 



c 

"a. 22 
■5 

o 
c 
o 
o 



•a 

o 



X 

o 
0- 

^ c 

« .9 

o- .52 



^ "o = > 

pq 



> U 



3 

o 

IS 

ON 
1) 



CQ S 
S 2 



C on 



2 ;s s 



o 
% 
Z 



o o 



D -a 



H c o 



E V3 



3 

-a 

-a 

u 
00 
_o 
o 
o 

S3 



O 

Cl- 



ef) o 



M l1 U< 

=J y 
|3 ca 

CI i/-^ 00 



O" CT" CT 

M 53 "3 

o o o 

O o o 

q_ o o 

o lo in 

cN 
— ' (N) 



ID 

•a 

o 
CQ 



OS 



o 



o 
c 
o 
U 



b CO 

S -3 
O. CL 

3 U3 

< 



X = K 



> o 

1) — . 

"O 03 

O > 



z - 



1/3 'r: T" 
c 



.2 eg S 

X S is 



^ c 

s ^ 

^ o 

03 00 
^ 03 

'rB. O 
o 

03 U 
3 

s .s 



o 
o 
o 

CO 



ON 



O KJ M 

c n 

^ — i2 
« x: 

D. 1) 

03 « "S 

ao < 2: 
" 

t- u c 

00 ^ o 

o a 'V 

XI c >. 

^ Oh 



o 
o 
o 
o 
o 



o 

ON 



&0 
03 

o 



< 



a 
bp 

2 

BO 
< 



u 
ea 
On 
J3 



3 

o 

VI 

O 
in 



o 

in 



o 

00 

u 



c 

CO 
4^ 



O 
S 

o 
U 



■a 
Pi 



u 



o 
o 
o 



O 
— ■ 

CL, ^ 



O 

B 

u 

.2 g 
k> 



o 



c 



oa Qj ^ 

^ H S 



•a 1) 
c 3 



00 



I ° 



' o 
c 
o 



« c 

ao o 2 

C 3 

• — cc w 



Z 



o 
o 
o 

o 
<o 



OS 



(U 

ao 
« 

kH 

o 

3 



< 
P 

x: 
o 
« 
o 
U 



X) 



u 



3 J2 



o 

Q 

< 
Q 
O 

■ 

H 
Ed 
Ed 
OS 
H 
(» 
K 

M 

o 

z 

.. u 



ao 

CQ 

o 

3 



T3 
3 

03 

'« 
CK 



ao 



B 
ft. 



CO 



!/5 



o c3 
o H 



o 
o 
o 
o" 

CM 

( 



o" cr cr 



0^ 



u 
a 



w3 c/3 cfl 



S ^ - ^ 

c55 ! i 



o o o 
o o o 
o o o 
o* o' o" 
— o -<t 
CT) VO — CM 



.. o- o- .. .2 



C3 



o o 

o o 

o o 

_ o o* 

"=5 

00 «N CN 



o 
E- 

1) 



e2 



00 ! 



Q. 
U 



o 

B 

•o 



•a 

u 
> 

s 

C 

cs 



Co 

I 

Si 



Co 



T5 

«3 

o 
a 
o 

in' 

O 

u 

S 
s 

CO 

H 
Z 

^ .2 
O 13 
i-j <^ 

1^ 

Q 
H 

o 

An 

Ed 

as 

H 



El] 
< 



e 

c 
o 
a 

o 



C 



o 



T3 

•i 2 



a. 
15 
o 



« -a 

ElU 

•S I 
c .S 

S S 

P 

£^ 

-I 

a| 

S E 

S <u 



c 




o 
U 



o 
2 



•O 3 

(U p— I 



3 o a; <x 



o 
a. 



CO 

■<* 

u 



c 
s 

■c 
o 
a. 
a. 
O 



w 



O 

.a < 
cu ^ 



o 



N 
> 



u 

I 
1 

o 



Q. 

O 



o 
c 

00 



c 
u 

E 
c 

2 

> 
c 

u 

o 
u 

C/3 

o 
c 
« 



ca 
C/3 



o 
o 

CL. 



E 

a. 

3 

O 

O 



3 
T3 
C 



u 
u 

o 

C/3 



o 
c55 



o 



E 



< 



0\ 



n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



BODE GRAVEL /MISSION VALLEY ROCK 

This component of the project would consist of two adjacent facihties to be developed at Pier 92. Bode 
Gravel Company would develop a ready-mix concrete plant and Mission Valley Rock Company would 
develop a marine terminal to import aggregate materials (gravel and crushed rock) for use in production 
of concrete. In addition, Mission Valley Rock is pursuing discussions with the Port to develop an asphalt 
plant, which would also use imported aggregate materials. Although the Port has not indicated any 
affirmative interest in development of an asphalt plant, the potential impacts of such an operation are 
included in this EIR analysis. The two operators are discussed together because the current proposal 
calls for Bode Gravel and Mission Valley Rock to be joint tenants of the Port. However, ownership and 
operations of the two facilities would be separate. 

Bode Ready-Mix Concrete Plant 

Bode currently operates a ready-mix concrete^^ plant at Third and Sixteenth Streets, within the Mission 
Bay area now under development. Under the project. Bode would construct an all-new facility at Pier 
92, and the existing plant would be dismantled. The capacity of the new plant would be comparable to 
that of the existing plant, and Bode has applied to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for a 
permit that would allow the same maximum annual production as is currently permitted (production 
volume of 500,000 cubic yards (1,000,000 tons) per year, which is greater than the existing plant's 
highest-volume year, 317,400 cubic yards in 1998). The Bode plant is assumed to produce about 
325,000 cubic yards of concrete in the immediate future, increasing to about 425,000 cubic yards by 
2015 (see assumptions in Appendix A). 

The new Bode ready-mix plant would be at the east end of Amador Street, approximately one-third mile 
east of Third Street. It would be situated between an existing Mission Valley Rock sand processing plant 
to the north (on the Pier 92 wharf) and a rendering plant operated by Darling International to the south. 
The ready-mix plant would occupy approximately 3 acres (about 130,000 square feet) of land that is 
currently undeveloped, with the exception of several railroad spurs. All but one of the tracks would be 
removed, and the entire site would be paved with asphalt or concrete. The remaining track would be 
rehabilitated to provide rail access to the concrete plant. 

The ready-mix plant would include receiving facilities for aggregate material (gravel) delivered by 
bottom-hopper dump trucks and facilities for receiving ship-borne aggregate by conveyor from the 
adjacent Mission Valley import facility; storage bins for aggregate and sand; storage silos for Portland 



^2 Concrete consists of sand, aggregate (gravel), water, Portland cement and fly ash (a byproduct of coal combusuon), and a 
limited volume of additives that control setting time and flow rate, and sometimes add color. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



9 

ESA 990267 



Southern Woterfront SEIR 



n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



cement and "fly ash,"^^ both of which are used in the production of concrete; two mixers; and a series of 
conveyance systems for movement of the materials throughout the plant - conveyor belts for the solid 
aggregate material and an enclosed pneumatic pumping system for the Portland cement and fly ash, with 
so-called "baghouse filters" for dust control. Bode would also use water spray bars to reduce dust from 
aggregates in outdoor storage piles. Each of the two combined mixers and storage silos, known as a 
"batching plant," would be approximately 65 feet tall. In addition to the production facilities, the 
operation would have a truck maintenance shop, truck washout station with water reclamation, an office 
trailer, and parking for concrete-mixer trucks and employee vehicles. 

Most of the sand for concrete production would come from Mission Valley Rock's sand processing plant 
that currently operates at Pier 92, and which processes and cleans sand dredged from San Francisco Bay. 
Additional sand would be delivered by truck from the East Bay or delivered by cargo ship or barge. 
Aggregate could be delivered by truck from the East Bay or received by ship - potentially through 
Mission Valley Rock's marine terminal - while cement would come by rail and truck from the South 
Bay. 

Waste concrete left from unused production and undelivered loads would be processed to remove 
aggregate for reuse in production of additional concrete, to the extent feasible. Other waste would be 
delivered to a construction debris recycler for processing. 

The ready-mix plant would employ about 20 persons on-site. Bode projects that the plant would 
generally operate from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with occasional Sunday and 
nighttime operations to serve major jobs. These hours would be the same as at Bode's existing Third 
Street plant. 

Aggregate, sand, and cement would be delivered to the plant in semi-trailer trucks and by conveyor from 
Mission Valley Rock, and ready-mix trucks ("cement mixers") would make deliveries of concrete to 
customers and construction locations primarily within San Francisco. Trucks would travel on Amador 
Street to Third Street, and those trucks traveling outside San Francisco would generally use Cesar 
Chavez (Army) Street to reach the U.S. 101 or Interstate 280 freeways. 

Bode anticipates that the new ready-mix plant would be operational in 2001. 



Fly ash is a powdery material, composed largely of silica, that is captured from the exhaust gas of coal-fired power plants. . It 
reacts chemically with the calcium hydroxide in Portland cement and itself becomes cementitious (that is, helps bind the sand 
and aggregate in the concrete). Fly ash is advocated as improving the strength and durability of concrete - although it slows 
the initial curing - while at the same time reducing the relative volume of cement needed and thereby reducing the energy 
use and combustion byproducts of cement production. Fly ash is mandated in concrete by both Caltrans, for its projects, and 
by the U.S. EPA, for federal projects. One of the Industry Group components would include a fly ash import operation (see 
ISG Resources, p. 14). 

Certain concrete foundations for large buildings not supported on piles or piers must be poured continuously for 
24 consecutive hours or more to allow the concrete to cure properly. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



10 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



Mission Valley Rock Aggregate Import Terminal and Asphalt Plant 

The Mission Valley Rock aggregate import terminal would be located immediately west of the Bode 
concrete plant, also on Amador Street, approximately one-quarter mile east of Third Street. As indicated 
previously. Mission Valley Rock is also pursuing discussions with the Port to develop an asphalt plant. 
Together, the facilities would occupy about 5.2 acres (about 225,000 square feet). There are currently no 
privately owned commercial asphalt plants in San Francisco (the closest is in Brisbane). The City 
operates a plant on Jerrold Avenue for street repairs within San Francisco. Mission Valley Rock 
currently has a sand dredging and processing operation at Pier 92, east of the proposed Bode concrete 
plant, where operations would continue as at present. 

To provide a conservative analysis, this SEIR assumes that the asphalt plant would be developed. The 
proposed asphalt plant would include receiving facilities for aggregate material (gravel); storage bins for 
aggregate and sand; storage tanks for asphalt cement; an asphalt oil heater and an asphalt drum 
dryer/mixer, both gas-fired; storage bins for the finished asphalt product, which would be dispensed from 
the bins into trucks for delivery to the job site; and conveyors for movement of the materials throughout 
the plant. The dryer/mixer would be equipped with a baghouse filter for dust control. In addition to the 
production facilities, the plant would have an office/control room, a small tool trailer, and employee 
vehicle parking. 

The aggregate terminal would include conveyor systems for transferring aggregate from ships to indoor 
and outdoor storage piles and for transferring aggregate from storage to the proposed asphalt plant and to 
the Bode ready-mix concrete plant, as well as both indoor (in an existing warehouse along the Islais 
Creek waterfront ) and outdoor storage facilities. Mission Valley Rock would use spray bars to sprinkle 
aggregates with water during ship unloading, both at the ship conveyor and at the outdoor stockpile 
where the material would arrive. The entire Mission Valley Rock site would be paved with asphalt or 
concrete. 

Most of the sand for asphalt production would come from Mission Valley Rock's existing sand 
processing plant at Pier 92. Aggregate would be delivered by ship and barge at the adjacent import 
terminal on Islais Creek, while asphalt cement would come by truck from refineries in Contra Costa or 
Solano counties. 

The asphalt plant and aggregate terminal would employ about 10 persons on-site. The facilities would 
generally operate from 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with occasional Sunda>' and 
nighttime operations to serve major paving jobs. Plant capacity would be 400 tons per hour, with limits 
of 6,000 tons per day for 60 days per year and 4,000 tons per day otherwise. Total asphalt production 
would be 400,000 tons per year in the near term, increasing to about 550,000 tons by 2015 (see 



Asphalt consists of primarily of aggregate (crushed rock) and asphalt cement, a petroleum product, with a small amount of 
sand. 

The sand plant cleans and dries sand that is dredged from San Francisco Bay for use in concrete production. At present, this 
sand is trucked to existing Bode and RMC Pacific ready-mix plants on Third Street in the Mission Bay area. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



11 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



assumptions in Appendix A). While barge and ship calls would be periodic, the marine terminal would 
be used daily for aggregate storage and shipment to the asphalt plant and to other facilities, including the 
Bode ready-mix plant. Ship and barge calls would occur perhaps once a month in the first year of 
operation, and as often as twice per month by 2015 as the volume of aggregate received by ship increases 
over time. The import terminal could handle up to 1.2 million tons of aggregate per year. 

Assuming operation of the asphalt plant, finished asphalt would be delivered to customers and 
construction locations both within and outside San Francisco, with out-of-city deliveries generally 
limited to the northern Peninsula. Trucks would travel on Amador Street to Third Street, and those 
trucks traveling outside San Francisco would generally use Cesar Chavez (Army) Street to reach the 
U.S. 101 or Interstate 280 freeways. 

Mission Valley Rock Company anticipates that the asphalt plant and aggregate terminal would be 
operational in 2001. 

Zoning and Approvals Required 

The Bode and Mission Valley Rock sites are in a M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Use District and a 40-X Height 
and Bulk District. These projects would be consistent with the M-2 Use District and the 40-X Height 
and Bulk District. These project components could not proceed unless the Port Commission approves 
a lease agreement authorizing the proposed uses. Any non-maritime lease agreement would also require 
approval by the Board of Supervisors if it would exceed $1 million in revenue to the Port or would be for 
a term of 10 years or longer; however, the Bode-Mission Valley facility would include a maritime 
component. Each project component would require an Authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate 
from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bode has an existing Permit for its Third Street 
facility that would be amended for the new Pier 92 ready-mix plant. Both facilities would require a 
General Storm Water Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and each would be 
required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to address collection, monitoring, and 
discharge of runoff. Each plant would also require a Hazardous Material Storage Permit from 
San Francisco Fire Department for an on-site fuel tank for the front-end loaders that would move 
materials within the plants, and might also require an industrial sewer discharge permit from the City 
Public Utilities Commission if any process water is to be discharged into the City sewer system. The 
project would also require building permit(s) from the Port. Neither facility would be constructed within 
the 100-foot shoreline band. However, the Mission Valley Rock facility could require BCDC approval 
for a change in use in the existing warehouse, which is currently used for storage. 



Pursuant to Planning Code Section 260(b)(2)(M), "structures and equipment necessary for the operation of industrial plants,' 
such as the 65-foot-tall concrete batching plant, are exempt irom the applicable height limit as long as they do not contain 
separate floors. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



12 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



BRITISH PACIFIC AGGREGATES 

British Pacific Aggregates (BPA) would develop a storage facility for the waterbome importation of 
construction aggregates (sand, gravel, and crushed stone) to be used in the production of concrete and 
asphalt. BPA proposes to use Pier 94 as the dock for ships that would bring aggregate from out-of-state 
to supplement and/or replace existing local supplies. The aggregate would be delivered by self- 
unloading ships directly to Pier 94, where it would be unloaded using on-board equipment and stored in 
partially enclosed stockpiles in up to about six acres on the pier apron, approximately 150 feet shoreward 
of the wharf. To minimize dust, BPA would use spray bars to moisten aggregate both during unloading 
and while in storage. BPA proposes to supply local producers of ready -mix concrete and asphalt, 
potentially including Bode Gravel Company's ready -mix plant and Mission Valley Rock Company's 
proposed asphalt plant (see above), and RMC Pacific's ready-mix plant concrete (see below, p. 15), as 
well as other existing, smaller concrete producers in the project area^^ and possibly elsewhere. 

Improvements to be constructed would include outdoor storage bins for aggregate and sand, and possibly 
conveyors to move material from one location to another and/or for loading into trucks for transport to 
end users. Front-end loader(s) may also be used for loading trucks. As noted above, spray bars would be 
employed to keep the material moistened while in storage, to minimize dust. No new paving would be 
needed, because the BPA storage facilities would be located on an already-paved portion of the Pier 94 
apron. 

In addition to the shipping and storage facilities, BPA has indicated that it may develop a ready-mix 
concrete plant and/or an asphalt plant inland from the stockpile area. Both of these uses are under 
discussion with the Port and have been included in this SEIR for purposes of a conservative analysis. 
These facilities, if constructed, would use aggregate material taken directly from the stockpiles (without 
the need to employ diesel haul trucks). Production of ready-mix concrete and/or asphalt by BPA would 
be contingent on the company capturing a share of the local market for one or both products. As 
described in Appendix A, this SEIR does not assume that BPA would engage in production of either 
product. However, as also stated in Appendix A, the net result of BPA producing either or both of these 
materials would not be an increase in the total volume of concrete or asphalt manufactured within the 
Southern Waterfront area, but an incremental shift in the location of such production. Should such 
production be undertaken, the concrete and/or asphalt plant(s) would be portable facilities that would be 
erected on a semi-permanent basis at Pier 94 for the duration of BPA's lease. Regardless of whether 
concrete or asphalt were produced, no permanent structures would be erected. Other facilities, such as an 
office and tool/repair shop, would be within portable trailers. On-site parking for up to about 
15 employees would be provided. The total site area would be about 10 acres, of which six acres would 
be used for aggregate stockpiling. 



Existing ready-mix concrete producers are located on Amador Street (Pier 90) and at the former Western Pacific rail yard 
adjacent to Pier 80. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



13 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



Road access would be via Cargo Way and Third Street, with Cesar Chavez (Army) Street and U.S. 
Highway 101 and Interstate 280 the anticipated routes to and from most non-local destinations. 

The BPA facility would be operational late in 2001. 



Zoning and Approvals Required 

The BPA site is in a M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and would 
be consistent with these regulations; the batching plant would be exempt from the 40-foot height limit 
pursuant to Planning Code Section 260(b)(2)(M). The BPA project component could not proceed unless 
the Port Commission approves a lease agreement authorizing the proposed uses. Any non-maritime 
lease agreement would also require approval by the Board of Supervisors if it would exceed $1 million in 
revenue to the Port or would be for a term of 10 years or longer; however, the BPA operation would be a 
maritime facility. Because the BPA project component would not include storage of aggregate within 
100 feet of the shoreline, no BCDC approval would be required. (On-ship conveyors would preclude the 
, need for construction of any facilities within the 100 feet of the shoreline.) The BPA facility would 
require an Authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate from the Bay Area Air Quality Management 
District; a General Storm Water Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, with the 
required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; and, potentially, a Hazardous Material Storage Permit 
from San Francisco Fire Department if an on-site fuel tank is required. This component would require an 
industrial sewer discharge permit from the City Public Utilities Commission and building permit(s) from 
the Port. 



ISG RESOURCES 

ISG Resources Inc. proposes to re-use two existing banks of now- vacant former grain silos at Pier 90 for 
the storage of "fly ash," a byproduct of coal-fired power plants that is used as a partial replacement for 
Portland cement in the production of concrete. The silos formerly stored grain that was brought in by 
rail and then loaded from the silos onto ships for export. These operations were discontinued following 
the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.'^ Fly ash would be brought in by rail car, transferred to the silos, and 
then made available to concrete producers, including those currently proposing to operate in the 
immediate vicinity - Bode, RMC Pacific, and smaller local producers (and potentially British Pacific). 
In the future, fly ash could be brought by barge from other locations and offloaded into the silos. 
Outbound shipments to concrete batching plants would be in trucks with pneumatic pumping systems. 

Physical improvements to be undertaken would consist of rehabilitation of the silos; enclosure of the 
conveyor system and installation of state-of-the-art dust control systems on the silos and conveyor 
system; replacement of the electrical and propulsion components for the conveyor system; construction 



ISG recently rehabilitated older silos for fly ash storage and ^stribution in Pomona, California, and also has fly ash 
operations in Redwood City, Sacramento, San Bernardino, and Oxnard. 



Case No. 1999. 377E 14 Southern Waterfront SEIR 

ESA 990267 



n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



of a truck loading facility; and rehabilitation of at least one of the existing rail spurs to allow for 
shipment of fly ash to the ISG site by rail car. 

ISG proposes to undertake this project component in two phases, each corresponding with one of the two 
banks of silos. Phase I would renovate the newer bank of silos, and would involve approximately 
70,000 square feet of site area. Phase II would involve renovation of the older silos, which are 
anticipated to require greater time and effort, and would occupy about 30,000 square feet. The combined 
site area would be about 2.3 acres on the north side of Amador Street, west the proposed Mission Valley 
Rock site and approximately 800 feet east of Third Street. 

ISG estimates employment at the fly ash facility at between eight and 30 persons, depending on demand 
for the fly ash. Employee parking would be provided on-site. Non-local trucks would travel on Amador 
Street to Third Street. 

The company anticipates scaling up to an ultimate volume, by 2015, of 100,000 tons of fly ash handled 
per year, about half of which could be used by other Industry Group firms (Bode and RMC Pacific). ISG 
estimates that the rehabilitation of the former grain silos and other equipment would take about five 
months. The fly ash facility could be operational in 2001. 

Zoning and Approvals Required 

The ISG Resources site is in a M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 
The operation would use the existing former grain silos. Although the silos are taller than 40 feet. onl\' 
minor changes would be required to the exterior (primarily associated with dust control equipment), and 
this project component therefore would be consistent with the use and height and bulk controls for the 
site. The ISG project component could not proceed unless the Port Commission approves a lease 
agreement authorizing the proposed uses. Any non-maritime lease agreement would also require 
approval by the Board of Supervisors if it would exceed $1 million in revenue to the Port or would be for 
a term of 10 years or longer. The project would not require BCDC approval, as it would not be within 
100 feet of the shoreline. The ISG component would require an Authority to Construct and a Permit to 
Operate from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; a General Storm Water Permit from the 
Regional Water Quality Control Board, with the required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan; and, 
potentially, a Hazardous Material Storage Permit from San Francisco Fire Department if an on-site fuel 
tank is required. This component would also require an industrial sewer discharge permit from the Cit) 
Public Utilities Commission and building pennit(s) from the Port. 

RMC PACIFIC MATERIALS 

RMC Pacific proposes to construct a ready-mix concrete plant on a 3. 1 -acre parcel at the west end of 
Pier 80, at the southeast comer of Illinois and Marin Streets, to replace its existing ready-mix plant at 
Third and Mariposa Streets, within the Mission Bay project cmrently under development. RMC's 
existing plant would be dismantled, and the new plant would be developed with new equipment. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



15 

ESA 990267 



Soulhcni Waterfront SEIR 



n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



The RMC Pacific site is currently paved and in use as a storage yard by Marine Terminals Corporation, 
which operates the Port's North Container Terminal at Pier 80. Because of the site location, RMC 
proposes ultimately to receive approximately 60 percent (by weight) of its raw materials - primarily 
aggregate - by rail and ship.^o The firm currently receives all supplies by truck. The proposed new 
ready-mix plant would include receiving and unloading facilities to accommodate both rail cars and 
ships; storage bins for aggregate and sand; a 65-foot-tall batching plant with cement and fly ash storage 
silos, mixer, office, and dust containment system; and a series of conveyors for movement of the 
materials throughout the plant. In addition to the production facilities, the ready-mix plant would have a 
truck maintenance shop (involving remodeling of an existing open-bay structure), truck washout station 
with water reclamation, and parking for concrete-mixer trucks and employee vehicles. 

Waste concrete left from unused production and undelivered loads would be processed to remove 
aggregate and clarified water for reuse in production of additional concrete, as possible. Other waste 
would be delivered to a construction debris processor for recycling. 

The RMC facility would generally operate from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with 
occasional nighttime operations to serve major jobs; these hours would be the same as at RMC Pacific's 
existing Third Street plant. Approximately 30 persons would be employed on a full-time basis, the same 
number as at the existing facility. The RMC plant is assumed to produce about 325,000 cubic yards of 
concrete in the immediate future, increasing to about 425,000 cubic yards by 2015 (see assumptions in 
Appendix A). 

Concrete deliveries would use Third Street to reach points north and Third Street or Bayshore Boulevard 
to points south, in San Francisco. Truck traffic to or from points outside the City would use 
U.S. Highway 101 and Interstate 280 to the Cesar Chavez (Army) Street exit. No on-site truck fueling 
would be provided. RMC mixers would use off-site commercial fueling stations. 

The RMC Pacific plant would be operational in 2001. The existing Third Street plant would remain 
operational as a satellite facility, at about half of its capacity, for approximately two years as the new 
plant scales up production. 

Zoning and Approvals Required 

The RMC Pacific site is in a M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, 
and would be consistent with these regulations; the batching plant would be exempt from the 40-foot 
height limit pursuant to Planning Code Section 260(b)(2)(M). The RMC Pacific project component 
could not proceed unless the Port Commission approves a lease agreement authorizing the proposed uses. 
Any non-maritime lease agreement would also require approval by the Board of Supervisors if it would 
exceed $1 million in revenue to the Port or would be for a term of 10 years or longer; however, the RMC 
facility would include a maritime component. As this project component would be developed partially 

The transportation analysis for this SEIR assumes approxinjately 40 percent of RMC s raw materials would come by ship 
and rail in the near term, increasing to about 60 percent by 2015. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



16 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



within 100 feet of the shoreline, it would require approval from BCDC. The RMC Pacific component 
also would require an Authority to Construct and a Permit to Operate from the Bay Area Air Quality 
Management District and a General Storm Water Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control 
Board, with the required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The City would also have to issue an 
industrial sewer discharge permit from the City Public Utilities Commission and building permit(s) from 
the Port. 



WASTE MANAGEMENT 

Waste Resources Technologies (WRT), a subsidiary of Waste Management Inc., proposes to operate a 
Construction/Demolition Material Recovery Facility (MRF) in an existing building at Pier 70, in the 
northern portion of the project site. The MRF, which would reclaim usable materials, such as metal and 
wood, contained in construction and demolition debris for recycling, would replace a former WRT 
facility near 3Com Park, which was closed in 1999. 

WRT proposes to lease an existing building at Pier 70, located near 20th and Illinois Streets, in the 
former Union Iron Works complex. The structure, identified as Building 116, contains approximately 
24,000 square feet of interior space. There would be no structural modifications to the exterior of the 
building, which was constructed in 1917. However, WRT would renovate portions of the building's 
interior to accommodate the MRF. WRT would install a sort line with associated screens, conveyors, 
and other equipment for processing of construction and demolition material inside Building 1 16. The 
company would use rubber-tired front-end loaders (similar to a bulldozer but with a lifting blade and 
bucket) to load material onto the sort line. In contrast to WRT's former outdoor facility at Candlestick 
Point, all sorting and storage of material would be accomplished within Building 1 16. Parking would be 
provided on-site for employee vehicles and for staging of semi-trailer transfer trucks. 

WRT anticipates 16 on-site employees working two shifts (day and swing), with the facility to operate 
16 hours per day, six days per week. An estimated 350 tons per day of construction and demolition 
waste would be processed. Inbound material would be delivered primarily in debris-box-sized loads, 
while outbound trips would be made using semi-trailer trucks. 

Site access would be via 20th and Third Streets. Inbound trucks would come from various construction 
sites. Outbound trucks would be destined for local processors in the case of recyclable materials and 
local landfills, such as Redwood Landfill in Marin County and Altamont Landfill in Alameda County, in 
the case of materials that cannot be reused. Although no waterbome transport of materials is currently 
planned, there is a potential that recyclable materials, such as paper and metals, could be shipped to 
processors through the Port in the future. 

It is expected that the WRT facility would be in operation by 2001. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



17 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



Zoning and Approvals Required 

The Waste Management site is in a M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk 
District. Although the existing Building 1 16 is taller than 40 feet, the project proposes no changes to the 
structure's height or massing and it would therefore be consistent with the height and bulk limits for the 
site. The Waste Management project component could not proceed unless the Port Commission 
approves a lease agreement authorizing the proposed uses. Any non-maritime lease agreement would 
also require approval by the Board of Supervisors if it would exceed $1 million in revenue to the Port or 
would be for a term of 10 years or longer. As a solid waste facility, this project component would 
require conditional use authorization from the San Francisco Planning Commission. In addition, the 
WRT component would require issuance of a Solid Waste Facility Permit, which must be approved by 
the California Integrated Waste Management Board and the San Francisco Department of Public Health, 
as the Local Enforcement Agency. This project component would require a modification of the County 
Integrated Waste Management Plan. The project would also require an Authority to Construct and a 
Permit to Operate the on-site processing equipment from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 
The project would also require building permit(s) from the Port. The project would not require BCDC 
approval, as it would not be within 100 feet of the shoreline. 



COACH USA 

Coach USA proposes to lease approximately 8 acres at Pier 96 for bus storage, maintenance and repair, 
and ancillary office space. Coach USA, through its subsidiary Grosvenor Bus Lines Inc., currently 
operates Gray Line tour buses, as well as charter bus service, and transit and paratransit service for 
transit agencies including Golden Gate Transit and San Mateo County Transit (SamTrans). Grosvenor 
Bus Lines currently operates from a facility at Eighth and Harrison Streets. The company would relocate 
to Pier 96 and vacate its existing Eighth Street operations, where its lease is not being renewed. 

This project component would include use of an existing paved storage yard of approximately 6.9 acres 
(about 300,000 square feet), and use of existing buildings for bus maintenance and repair building (about 
26,000 square feet), office space (about 11,500 square feet), and additional miscellaneous building space 
(about 4,000 square feet). Coach USA plans to construct a fuel island and diesel fuel storage tank and a 
bus washer. The company also proposes to make some improvements to the buildings that would be 
used for maintenance/repair and office space. Anticipated on-site employment would be approximately 
200. 

On-site parking for employees and buses would be provided. Buses would enter and leave Pier 96 via 
Cargo Way. 

Zoning and Approvals Required 

The Coach USA site is in a M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 
The project would comply with the zoning and height and bulk requirements for the site. This project 
component could not proceed unless the Port Commission approves a lease agreement authorizing the 



Case No. 1999.377E 



18 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



proposed uses. Any non-maritime lease agreement would also require approval by the Board of 
Supervisors if it would exceed $1 million in revenue to the Port or would be for a term of 10 years or 
longer. The Coach USA project would require a Hazardous Material Storage Permit from the 
San Francisco Fire Department for operation of a fuel storage tank and an industrial sewer discharge 
permit from the City Public Utilities Commission, and would have to file a Business Plan for storage of 
any hazardous materials. Because of the outdoor storage yard, this component could also require a 
General Storm Water Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, with the required Storm 
Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The project would also require building permit(s) from the Port. The 
project would not require BCDC approval, as it would not be within 100 feet of the shoreline. 



ILLINOIS STREET INTERMODAL BRIDGE 

As the second category of components in the SEIR project description, the Port of San Francisco 
proposes to construct a bridge across the Islais Creek channel one block east of the existing Levon 
Hagoop Nishkian drawbridge on Third Street. The new bridge would extend across the channel along 
the line of Illinois Street, connecting the Port's North Container Terminal at Pier 80, on the north side of 
Islais Creek, with the numerous Port facilities on the south side of Islais Creek. These facilities include 
the Port's South Container Terminal at Piers 94-96; the adjacent Intermodal Container Transfer Facility 
(the "ICTF," where cargo containers are transferred directly from ship to rail and vice versa); Piers 90 
and 92 along the south side of Islais Creek channel; and the Piers 90-94 backlands area. The proposed 
bridge location is shown on Figure 2, p. 8. 

The Illinois Street bridge would provide a more direct route for rail cargo to and from Pier 80. Rail 
traffic destined to Pier 80 must currently travel north on a route that generally follows Interstate 280, 
more than one mile past the project site and through the Mission Bay area, beyond 16th Street, before 
returning south along Illinois Street to Pier 80. As part of the approved Mission Bay project, a portion of 
the existing rails through the Mission Bay area will be removed and are proposed for replacement with 
new rails within 16th Street, and a new switchback within a planned waterfront open space on the Terr>' 
Francois Boulevard right-of-way unless or until the Illinois Street Bridge is constructed. 

The new bridge would provide a direct rail link between the Port's two container terminals, eliminating 
the need for the existing and future routes through Mission Bay. At present, rail cars that are moved 
between Pier 80 and Piers 94-96 must travel the same route described above, north to 16th Street before 
returning south to Piers 94-96 via a rail link that diverges from the main line near Jerrold Avenue and 
Rankin Street. This so-called Quint Street Rail Link currently permits direct access from the main Union 
Pacific line (to and from points south of San Francisco) to Piers 94-96 and the ICTF. and would connect 
to Pier 80 via the Illinois Street bridge. Although rail traffic to Pier 80 and between the two terminals is 
limited at present, it is expected to increase in the future. The bridge would reduce the existing 
approximately four-mile rail trip between Pier 80 and Piers 94-96. over the existing rail route, to a direct 
route of approximately 0.2 miles. When the bridge is completed, the rails that run near 16th Street would 



Case No. 1999.377E 



19 

ESA 990267 



Southern Walcrfroni SEIR 



n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



be removed, and there would be no need to install new rails in 16th Street or in the new waterfront open 
space.21 The existing and proposed rail routes are shown on Figure 3. 

The Illinois Street bridge would be approximately 28 feet wide and would have a single rail line in the 
center and two traffic lanes, one in each direction, that would overlap the rails. Thus, the bridge would 
provide a direct truck connection between the two container facilities, with trucks having access to the 
bridge only when no trains were crossing. (No sidewalks are proposed. However, bicycle access would 
be allowed in the traffic lanes when no trains are crossing.) 

As proposed, the bridge project does not include a roadway that links the east end of Amador Street with 
Piers 94-96. Therefore, the truck route between Pier 80 and Piers 94-96 would be: south on Illinois 
Street and across the bridge to Amador Street, west on Amador to Cargo Way, and southeast on Cargo 
Way to Piers 94-96. 

The Port currently estimates the cost of the Illinois Street bridge at approximately $10 million. The Port 
was awarded a $4 million State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) grant and has applied for 
an additional $500,000 in STIP funds. Catellus Corporation, the developer of Mission Bay, would also 
provide some of the funding, as would the Port. Construction of the bridge is anticipated in 2003. As 
part of the bridge component of the project, the Port would install a system of stand pipes along Islais 
Creek for fire protection purposes. This system would allow fire engines to draw water directly from 
Islais Creek via hydrants placed at the water's edge, just as under existing conditions along the 
Embarcadero. In addition, the Port would provide pumping equipment, and the Fire Department is 
considering upgrading its high-pressure Auxiliary Water Supply System in the vicinity of Islais Creek 
west of Third Street. 

The Port proposes that the Illinois Street bridge be a "Lift-Segment Movable Bridge," meaning that the 
center span, which would be 60 feet long, would be constructed as three individual segments that could 
not be mechanically raised in place like a drawbridge. Instead, each of these segments could be lifted by 
a crane and stored on concrete piers that would be built next to the bridge. Unlike a drawbridge, a lift- 
segment bridge is designed to be opened only infrequently, primarily for passage of maintenance vessels 
and barges. Therefore, the new bridge would probably be opened no more than once yearly. 

The proposed lift-segment bridge would have the same clearance above water as the Third Street 
drawbridge over Islais Creek, which is a minimum of 4 feet of clearance at mean higher high water 



Rails in Illinois Street south of the Mission Bay project area are not cuirently planned for removal. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



20 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 




/yyv mii Southern Woltrjuml SUHltSA Uvlri.V.-| ■ 

SOURCE: Environmcnlal Science Associates. _„ _ 

Figure 3 

Existing and Proposed 
FaMght Rail Routes 



21 



II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



level. 22 This would permit navigation beneath the Illinois Street bridge by small pleasure craft such as 
canoes, kayaks, and other small vessels like rowboats. The Port believes the navigational needs of the 
west end of Islais Creek are and will continue to be for small vessels. A hand-launch dock has been 
constructed on the south shore of Islais Creek, just west of the existing Third Street drawbridge. A sand 
ramp has also recently been constructed to facilitate the hand-launching of small vessels. The Port does 
not propose to open the new Illinois Street bridge to permit the passage of larger pleasure craft or 
sailboats. 



APPROVALS REQUIRED 

The design and construction of the Illinois Street bridge would be subject to approval of a bridge permit 
by the U.S. Coast Guard, which must determine the future navigational needs of Islais Creek before it 
issues a permit. The Coast Guard would determine whether a lift-segment span is appropriate. The 
bridge would also require approval by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) 
because it would be constructed over the Bay and within the 100-foot band along the San Francisco Bay 
shoreline over which BCDC has jurisdiction. The BCDC would also be required to find that the 
proposed bridge, as a federal action (i.e., approval by the U.S. Coast Guard) is consistent with the federal 
Coastal Zone Management Act. Approval could also be required from the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (including consultation with the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service) and Section 10 of the federal Rivers and Harbors Act. In addition, the bridge 
would require water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, under 
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and might require a Stream Alteration Permit from the Calif omia 
Department of Fish and Game. Because of the federal action and funding, environmental review of the 
bridge must also include completion of a document prepared pursuant to the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA). In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission would have to approve the 
change in rail route and abandonment of track within the Mission Bay project area. Funding 
authorization would be required from the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the Port Commission 
must also approve the bridge project. A building permit would also be required. 



FUTURE PORT DEVELOPMENT 

The third major category of components within the project description consists of growth in cargo 
shipping at Piers 80 and 94-96 - the Port's two container terminals - and expansion of the Port's dredge 
material handling program, as well as potential future development of several other Port sites, or 
"opportunity areas," in the "backlands" (upshore from) Piers 90-94, and at and near Pier 70. Although 
the Port has not identified specific development proposals for these opportunity areas at this time, the 
Port's Waterfront Land Use Plan does allow future development proposals, and these potential future 
uses are therefore part of the "project" as defined for CEQA purposes, anticipated for the most part to be 



Higher high water is the higher of the two daily high tides. (There are two high and two low tides each day; of the high 
tides, one is higher, and of the low tides, one is lower.) The mean higher high water is the average of the higher high water 
levels over time. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



22 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



n. PROJECT DESCRIPnOy 



implemented by the SEIR horizon year of 2015. The actual range of potential development is broad, 
with widely varying environmental impacts. For analytical purposes, this SEIR assumes relatively 
intensive uses to produce a conservative assessment of environmental impacts. Any actual development 
program or project(s) for the below areas (other than cargo shipping at Piers 80 and 94-96 and Port 
dredge material handling at Pier 94) proposed in the future may be reviewed by a community advisory 
group process set forth in the Waterfront Plan, and would be subject to additional project-specific 
environmental review. 

Following are the development assumptions, with land uses as specified in the Waterfront Land Use 
Plan, that are used in this SEIR to analyze projected activity at these sites, which are shown in Figure 2, 
p. 8. 

CARGO SHIPPING 

As part of the project analyzed in this SEIR, the Port's two container terminals, at Pier 80 and Pier 94-96. 
would potentially accommodate increased cargo shipping activity consisting of handling of both 
containerized and non-containerized cargo. The project therefore would include movement of 
approximately 200,000 TEIJ^^ of new cargo (beyond existing volumes of approximately 50,000 TEU) in 
addition to the cargo activity associated with the Industry Group leases. Of the 200,000 new TEU, 
30,000 TEU is assumed to be accommodated by 2001, another 20,000 TEU by 2003, and 
150,000 additional TEU by 2015. Cargoes may be containerized or bulk, depending on demand from 
shippers (see note 6, p. 3, for an explanation of different types of cargo). 

DREDGE MATERIAL HANDLING SITE 

The Port has recently begun storing material dredged from the Bay during routine maintenance dredging 
from Piers 35, 80, and 96. (The Port also uses storage sites in the East Bay.) Currently, dredge material 
is placed by crane onto the pier deck within a temporary three-acre enclosure at Pier 96 and allowed to 
drain and partially dry (to about 20 percent moisture content) before being hauled by truck to landfills, 
where it is used as daily cover for solid waste landfilling operations. The (drained) decant water is 
discharged to the Bay. The Port plans to expand this operation and move it to Pier 94, where it would 
occupy up to about five acres of unpaved land north of the paved pier apron. At the new site, about 
20,000 cubic yards of dredge material per year would be pumped from a barge into the drying area. It is 
anticipated that the off-hauling by truck of partially dried dredge materials would occur over a period of 
about two weeks during the year. Trucks would travel on Amador Street. 

PIERS 90-94 BACKLANDS 

This approximately 50-acre area would potentially be developed with a mix of about 650.(XK) square feet 
of light industrial uses and approximately 1 million square feet of commercial office and/or research and 



23 



See footnote 7, p. 3, for an explanation of TEU (twenty-foot equivalent unit). 



Case No. 1999.377E 



23 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



n. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 



development uses. Office and/or research and development uses would be anticipated to occur in two- to 
three-story buildings that would be expected to include landscaped open spaces as part of an overall site 
plan. 

PIER 70 

The project analyzed in this SEIR includes development of approximately 200,000 square feet of new 
Maritime Industrial uses and an additional 200,000 square feet of General Industrial uses within the 55- 
acre Pier 70 Maritime Reserve Area. The Waterfront Plan includes Maritime Industry among the uses 
related to waterbome commerce and navigation. Maritime Industry could also include Maritime Support 
uses such as equipment storage and warehousing uses. The Plan defines General Industry as "facilities 
for enclosed and open air industrial activities, including but not limited to: recycling operations, 
automobile repair and related services, bio-remediation, sand and gravel operations, transmission 
facilities, and manufacturing operations." 

PIER 70 MIXED-USE OPPORTUNITY AREA 

The project analyzed in this SEIR includes development of this 16-acre area, between 18th and 21st 
Streets and extending one to three blocks east of Illinois Street. It is anticipated that uses in this area 
would include a mix of uses, including approximately 610,000 square feet of commercial office and/or 
research and development space; 100,000 square feet of retail and other commercial space; and 
240,000 square feet of public access and recreational maritime uses. The Port plans to issue a Request 
for Proposals to potential developers of the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity Area in late 2000. (An 
alternative considered in this SEIR would include housing on a portion of the Pier 70 Mixed-Use 
Opportunity Area.) 

WESTERN PACIFIC PROPERTY 

The so-called "Western Pacific Property," a former rail yard east of Illinois Street between 25th and 
Cesar Chavez (Army) Streets, will be partially occupied by a Muni Metro maintenance and storage 
facility that will be constructed as part of the soon-to-be undertaken Third Street Light Rail Extension 
project. The Muni Metro facility was analyzed in the EIR/EIS for the Light Rail Project, and will occupy 
about three-fourths of the approximately 25-acre Western Pacific Property. No specific development 
projects are forecast for the remainder of the Western Pacific Property. However, as part of the project 
analyzed in this SEIR it is assumed that part of the remainder of this site would be occupied by General 
Industrial uses, potentially including construction-related uses such as materials storage, on an interim 
basis. 

REFERENCES - Project Description 

NRMCA (National Ready Mixed Concrete Association) website (www.nrmca.org) . Viewed 
December 8, 1999. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



24 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



CHAPTER III 

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES 

SETTING 
STUDYAREA 

The project site is located within the Southern Waterfront area, which extends from Mariposa Street to 
India Basin, and encompasses the area from the shipyards at Piers 68-70 to the north to Pier 98 to the 
south. The Southern Waterfront area is the heart of the Port's industrial maritime operations. The area 
has the only facilities for containerized cargo on the San Francisco waterfront, and the remaining 
concentration of water-dependent and support activities such as cargo shipping, storage and trucking 
services. The Port's Southern Waterfront Terminals also are equipped to handle breakbulk, neo-bulk, 
and project cargoes. Much of the area is undeveloped or under-developed, such as the large area at 
Pier 70 and the "backlands" inland from the southern container terminal at Piers 94-96. 

The project area is generally bounded by 16th Street to the north, Islais Creek and Cargo Way to the 
south, Third Street to the west and the San Francisco Bay to the east. The project area includes Piers 68 
through 96. For purposes of analysis, the land use impacts study area has been defined as Mission Bay to 
the north, Oakdale Avenue to the south, Arkansas Street to the west and the San Francisco Bay to the 
east. 

EXISTING LAND USES 
Project Area 

The project area contains primarily cargo shipping, ship repair yard, industrial, and service, storage, and 
light industrial uses; open space at Warm Water Cove, along the north and south banks of Islais Creek, 
and at Pier 98, Heron's Head Park; and vacant land. The Port has a dredge materials handling operation 
at Piers 94-96. No residential uses are located within the project area (see Figure 4); the nearest 
residential areas are those in the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood, atop Potrero Hill, along Third 
Street, and in the small community known as Dogpatch, west of Third Street near 22nd Street (see Land 
Uses in the Vicinity, below). In the vicinity of the proposed Illinois Street Intermodal Bridge, there are 
existing vacant and industrial/manufacturing uses. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



25 

ESA 990267 



Southern Wawrfronl SEIR 




SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, Pittman & Hames Associates. 



1999.377E: Southern Waterfront SEIR (ESA 990267) m 

Figure 4 

Generalized Map of 
Existing Land Use 



26 



m. ENVreO>fMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



A. LAND USE, PLANS. AND POLICIES- SETTING 



The proposed sites of the Industry Group project components contain existing, vacant industrial 
buildings, vacant land, and industrial/manufacturing businesses. The Bode Ready-Mix Concrete Plant 
site is a three-acre site at Pier 92 that is currently vacant and undeveloped. The Mission Valley Rock 
Aggregate Terminal site and location of Mission Valley Rock's proposed asphalt plant, located 
immediately west of the Bode concrete site, is a 5.2 acre vacant site, which is adjacent to Mission Valley 
Rock's existing dredge sand processing facility. The British Pacific Aggregates facility would be located 
on a 10-acre site at the Pier 94 cargo terminal, which is also now vacant. ISG Resources proposes to re- 
use two existing now-unused former grain silos at Pier 90. The RMC Pacific Materials site is a 3.1 acre 
parcel located at the west end of Pier 80, and the southeast comer of Illinois and Marin Streets. The 
existing site is currently paved and used as a storage yard by Marine Terminals Corporation, which 
operates the Port's North Container Terminal at Pier 80. The Waste Resources Technologies site is a 
vacant existing building at Pier 70, located near 20th and Illinois Streets in the former Union Iron Works 
complex. The Coach USA site consists of approximately 8 acres at Pier 96 which is an existing paved 
storage yard (6.9 acres) and an existing building. Cargo shipping activity is accommodated at the Port's 
Pier 80 and Piers 94-96 terminals, which currently do not operate at capacity, while the Port's dredge 
material handling facility occupies about three acres in a temporary location at Pier 96. 

The unprogrammed Port lands on which the project analyzed in this EIR includes future commercial 
development are located in the Port backlands area. Pier 70 contains 55 acres of industrial uses and 
vacant land. The 16-acre Pier 70 Mixed Use Opportunity Area is also occupied by existing industrial 
uses and by vacant land. Three historic Union Irons Works buildings and the Bethlehem Steel 
headquarters building are located at Pier 70 at 20th and Illinois Streets. The "Western Pacific Propeny." 
now vacant, is a former rail yard east of Illinois Street between 25th and Cesar Chavez (Army) Streets 
consisting of 25 acres. The Piers 90-94 backlands area is approximately 40 acres of vacant, unimproved 
lands that contains temporary or "interim" industrial uses such as metal recycling, concrete crushing, and 
a soils bio-remediation facilities operated by the Department of Public Works. The Warm Water Cove 
open space recreational area is also within the project area, located at the east end of 24th Street. 

Land Uses in the Vicinity 

Land uses in the vicinity of the project site include industrial, manufacturing, residential, recreational and 
institutional uses, as well as two electric power-generating plants, one of which, the Potrero Power Plant 
owned by Southern Energy, while technically outside the study area on non-Port-owned land at the foot 
of 23rd Street, is surrounded by Port lands within the Southern Waterfront. Pacific Gas and Electric also 
owns the Hunters Point Power Plant on Hunters Point Expressway at Evans Avenue, at the southern 
boundary of the project area. 

The approved Mission Bay development is located in the northern portion of the land use study area. 
Mission Bay is planned for commercial, research / development, and bio-tech uses (including a new 
University of Califomia-San Francisco research campus) totaling 8.2 million square feet, and up to 6.000 
residential units. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



27 

ESA 990267 



Soidthcni Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICffiS- SETTING 

The nearest residential community is located approximately one-fourth mile west of Third Street, in a 
small mixed-use residential and manufacturing enclave commonly known as "Dogpatch." This area is 
located roughly between 20th and 23rd Street between Third Street and Minnesota Street, and contains 
mostly duplexes interspersed with single-family homes and some manufacturing and light industrial 
uses. 

Newer residential loft and live- work units are located on the west side of Third Street near 22nd Street 
and Mariposa Street. The Potrero Hill neighborhood is located west of Third Street between 1-280 and 
U.S. 101, about one and three-fourth miles from the project area. Potrero Hill is a mixed-use 
neighborhood. The lower portion of Potrero Hill contains light industrial and manufacturing uses, with 
some new live/work development. West of Arkansas Street are mostly single-family homes, duplexes, 
public housing, and some multi-family units. The Potrero Hill Recreation Center is located between 
Arkansas and Connecticut Street, near 22nd Street. Esprit Park, a publicly accessible park, is located at 
Indiana and 19th Streets. 

Portions of the Bay view-Hunters Point neighborhood are located approximately one-half mile from the 
project area, south of Evans Avenue and west of Third Street. Bayview-Hunters Point is a well- 
established residential and industrial neighborhood. This portion of Bayview-Hunters Point in the land 
use study area is primarily single family housing and multi-family housing located in Hunters Point, 
including San Francisco Housing Authority properties, with a mixture of conmiercial, manufactiuing and 
retail uses along Third Street. Light industrial, public and manufacturing are located in the India Basin 
Industrial Park, east of Cargo Way, and on Evans Avenue. 

Nearby recreational uses in Bayview-Hunters Point are the Youngblood Coleman Playground located at 
Mendell and Galvez Streets, east of Evans Avenue, and the Hunters Point Community Youth Park on 
Middlefield Road adjacent to the Malcolm X Academy, a private elementary school. 

Several major public facilities and a utility use are located in Bayview-Hunters Point. The Pacific Gas 
and Electric power plant and the U.S. Postal Service distribution center are located in the India Basin 
Industrial Park, between Cargo Way and Evans Avenue. The Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant is 
located on Phelps Street and Evans Avenue, and the Southeast Community College Center is on Oakdale 
Avenue and Phelps Street. 

Planned Land Use Changes 

Several large-scale projects are planned in the greater project area vicinity. As noted in the Project 
Description, the San Francisco Municipal Railway will construct a maintenance and rail car storage 
facility for the Third Street Light Rail Extension project on the Western Pacific site. Operation of the 
Third Street light rail line, to extend from the Caltrain station at Fourth and Townsend Streets to 
Visitacion Valley, will also include a turnaround track loop at 18th, Third, and Illinois Streets. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



28 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



ra. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



A. LAND USE. PLANS, AND POLICIES- SETTEsG 



The Planning Department has undertaken the "Better Neighborhoods 2002" program and is preparing the 
first three neighborhood plans under this effort, including one in the Central Waterfront, which includes 
the area between Mariposa Street and Islais Creek east of Interstate 280, adjacent to and including the 
northern part of the project area analyzed in this SEIR. 

The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is currently developing a redevelopment plan for the 
Bay view-Hunters Point area, bounded by Cesar Chavez Street to the north, San Francisco Bay to the 
east, the San Francisco city limits to the south and U.S. Highway 101 to the west. This redevelopment 
survey area includes portions of the project area for this SEIR, including Piers 94-96 and Pier 80, as well 
as Islais Creek. In addition, the Agency is beginning implementation of a redevelopment and reuse plan 
for the former Hunters Point Shipyard site, southeast of the SEIR project area. 

Southern Energy California, the operator of the Potrero Power Plant at 22nd and Illinois Streets, has filed 
an application with the California Energy Commission to construct a new natural gas-fued generating 
unit at the plant. This new unit, which would increase the plant's output from 360 megawatts to 900 
megawatts, is anticipated to be operational by 2003 (California Energy Commission, 2000). If approved, 
the expansion of the Potrero Plant is expected to allow for closure of the Hunters Point Power Plant, on 
Evans Avenue just southeast of the SEIR project area. Under an agreement reached in 1998 between 
PG&E, the operator of the Hunters Point plant, and the City, the 429-megawatt Hunters Point plant is to 
be closed when a replacement source of energy is found. PG&E will be responsible for removal of the 
plant and restoration of the site. The City plans to convert the Hunters Point plant site to open space. 



PLANS AND POLICIES 
San Francisco General Plan 

The San Francisco General Plan, Zoning Map, and Planning Code provisions govern all of San 
Francisco. The General Plan contains 10 elements (Commerce and Industry, Recreation and Open 
Space, Residence, Conraiunity Facilities, Urban Design, Environmental Protection, Transportation. Air 
Quality, Community Safety and Arts), which contain goals, policies, and objectives for the physical 
development of the City. In addition, the General Plan includes area plans containing objectives and 
policies for specific geographic areas. The project site is located largely within the Central Waterfront 
planning area that extends from Pier 48 to Islais Creek. The Planning Commission and Board of 
Supervisors approved amendments to General Plan language and to the Zoning Map and Planning Code 
to reflect the policies of the Waterfront Land Use Plan for the Southern Waterfront. 



Central Waterfront Plan 

The Central Waterfront Plan, an area plan within the San Francisco General Plan, guides growth and 
development along San Francisco's central waterfront, an irregularly shaped area that includes several 
subareas: Islais Creek, Central Basin, Lower Potrero, North Potrero, Mission Bay. and Showplace 



Case No. 1999.377E 



29 

ESA 990267 



Southrni W aterfront SEIR 



m. ENVraONMENfTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICffiS- SETTING 

Square. The project area is within the Central Waterfront Plan's Central Basin and Islais Creek planning 
areas. 

The Central Waterfront Plan "calls for development that will meet the City's pressing economic and 
employment needs without sacrificing environmental quality," with an emphasis on industrial 
development to aid in the diversification of the City's economy. The Central Waterfront Plan was 
amended in 1990 to divide the plan into two parts: Part I, which covers all subareas except Mission Bay, 
and Part II, which covers Mission Bay. The overall goal of the Plan for subareas other than Mission Bay 
"is to create a physical and economic environment conducive to the retention and expansion of 
San Francisco's industrial and maritime activities ... in order to reverse the pattern of economic decline 
in the area and to establish a land base for the industrial and maritime components of the San Francisco 
economy." The Central Waterfront Plan was amended in 1997 to accommodate adoption of the Port's 
Waterfront Land Use Plan, and Part 11 was amended again in 1998 upon adoption of the Mission Bay 
North and South Redevelopment Plans; the second of these amendments did not affect the Central Basin 
or Islais Creek subareas. Objectives and policies of the Central Waterfront Plan (as revised and amended 
in 1990, per Planning Commission Resolution No. 12040, and in 1997, per Planning Commission 
Resolution No. 14467) that are pertinent to the proposed project include the following: 

Land Use 

Objective 1: Strengthen and expand land uses essential to realizing the economic potential of the 
[Islais Creek, Central Basin, Lower Potrero, North Potrero, and Showplace Square] Subareas [i.e., 
those excluding Mission Bay]. 

Objective 1, Policy 1: Encourage the intensification and expansion of industrial and maritime 
uses. 

Objective 1, Policy 2: Preserve and protect the subareas as a land base for San Francisco industry. 
Prevent the conversion of land needed for industrial or maritime activity to non-industrial use. 
Permit only those non-industrial uses which do not interfere with industrial and maritime 
operations. 

Objective 1, Policy 3: Promote new development which has minimal adverse environmental 
consequences. Assure that adverse environmental impacts of new development are mitigated to 
the maximum feasible extent.. 

Objective 2: Maintain and develop additional uses on land determined to be surplus to industrial 
and maritime needs. 

Objective 2, Policy 1: Preserve existing residential uses and develop limited new housing. 

Objective 2, Policy 2: Preserve existing commercial uses and expand as needed to serve increases 
in the working and residential populations. 

Objective 2, Policy 3: Improve, expand, and develop recreational areas at established public 
access points along the waterfront enabling public use and enjoyment of the shoreline. 

Industry 

Objective 3: Retain, expand and protect indus^al activity. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



30 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRO^?MENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES- SETTING 

Objective 3, Policy 1 : Promote industrial expansion through maximizing and intensifying the use 
of existing facilities and properties, rehabilitating older industrial structiures and developing vacant 
land with industrial uses. 

Objective 3, Policy 2: Encourage the consolidation of rail operations and unnecessary tracks and 
facilities to increase land available for industry. Maintain and, as needed, upgrade rail service to 
San Francisco. 

Objective 3, Policy 6: Encourage the growth of firms which strengthen the maritime or 
complement the maritime operation of the Port, either by directly engaging in maritime activities 
or by providing ancillary services which serve or support maritime activities. 

Objective 3, Policy 10: Assist firms displaced from other parts of San Francisco, especially those 
displaced by downtown office expansion, in locating to the subareas. 

Objective 3, Policy 11: Attract new industries that create employment opportunities for City 
residents, add tax revenues in excess of public service costs and strengthen and diversify 
San Francisco's economic tax base. 

Maritime 

Objective 4: Retain and expand maritime uses along the Central Waterfront shoreline. 

Objective 4, Policy 1: Retain and improve and, if warranted, expand all existing maritime general 
cargo facilities along the Central Waterfront (Piers 48, 50, 70 and 80). 

Objective 4, Policy 2: Retain all existing ship repair operations along the Central Waterfront. 

Objective 4, Policy 4: Reserve land adjacent to the waterfront as required for maritime support 
use. 

Transportation 

Objective 7: Improve the transportation accessibility of the subareas. 

Objective 7, Policy 2: Provide adequate rail and truck access to all maritime piers. 

Objective 7, Policy 3: EstabUsh an official truck route system along the designated major and 
secondary thoroughfares to facilitate truck movements within and to port facilities and other area 
businesses and to minimize the adverse impacts of truck movement on adjacent residential, 
commercial and recreational land uses. 

Objective 8, Policy 5: Require off-street parking facilities for freight loading and ser\'ice vehicles 
in all major new developments and incorporate these in older buildings where feasible. Provide 
short-term loading spaces on the street for routine deliveries and essential services, with strict 
enforcement of time limits. 

Recreation and Open Space 

Objective 9: Provide public access and recreational opportunities along the shoreline. 

Objective 9, Policy 3: Provide public overlooks, viewing areas, and open spaces with convenient 
pedestrian access in areas of maritime activity, where feasible and where it will not inhibit the 
maritime operations. 

Central Basin Subarea 

Objective 15: Maintain and expand maritime activity in the Central Basin subarea. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



31 

ESA 990267 



Stuithcnt Wiiwrfront SFIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES- SETTING 

Objective 15, Policy 3: Preserve and rehabilitate the three Union Iron Works Buildings (located in 
part of the former Bethlehem Steel area on the north side of 20th Street, east of Illinois Street 
which, as historic and architectural resources, represent the importance of the ship building 
industry in San Francisco's development. In order to make adaptive reuse feasible, permit 
revenue-generating commercial and industrial uses which are compatible with ongoing ship repair 
and potential future maritime and industrial operations on adjacent bayward Port property, as 
indicated in the Port of San Francisco's Waterfront Land use Plan. Design such adaptive reuse 
projects consistent with the Waterfront Design & Access urban design and preservation policies 
and criteria for this area, contained in the Waterfront Land use Plan. 

Objective 16: Retain and expand industrial uses. 

Objective 16, Policy 1: Encourage more intensive use of existing industrial land and facilities in 
locations or for durations which will not foreclose or inhibit development of future container 
facilities. 

Objective 18, Policy 1: Minimize blockage of private and public views and maintain, to the extent 
feasible, sightlines from Potrero Hill and Mission Bay to the waterfront and downtown. 

Islais Creek Subarea 

Objective 19: Expand maritime activity and ancillary services. 

Objective 19, Policy 1: Maintain Pier 80 as a container terminal facility and allow other types of 
cargo shipping or interim uses of this facility when it is not fully utilized for container cargo 
operations. Allow compatible maritime, industrial or commercial uses on the adjacent former 
Western Pacific rail yard, once this site has been acquired by the Port. 

Objective 20: Develop waterfront recreational uses on Islais Creek Channel. 

Objective 20, Policy 1: Develop the Islais Creek Turning Basin west of the Third Street Bridge for 
recreational use, which could include a small craft dock or launching facility, if an when it is not 
longer needed for Port maritime activity. 

Objective 21: Retain and expand industrial uses in the Islais Creek subarea. 
South Bayshore Plan 

The South Bayshore Plan, an area plan within the San Francisco General Plan, governs land use policies 
and objectives for the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood, including land south of Islais Creek within 
the project area. The project area, therefore, encompasses portions of the India Basin Industrial Area 
Sub-District, and is adjacent to the Hunters Point and Northern Industrial Area Sub-Districts, of the 
South Bayshore Plan. These areas are also included in the proposed Bayview-Hunters Point 
Redevelopment Project Area, currently under study by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency for 
future designation as a Redevelopment Area. Policies of the South Bayshore Plan that are pertinent to 
the proposed project include the following: 

Land Use 

Policy 1.2: Restrict toxic chemical industries and other industrial activities with significant 
environmental hazards from locating adjacent to or nearby existing residential areas. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



32 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES- SETTING 

Transportation 

Policy 3.1: Improve and establish truck routes between industrial areas and freeway interchanges. 
Policy 4.5: Create a comprehensive system for pedestrian and bicycle circulation. 

Industry 

Objective 8: Strengthen the role of South Bayshore industrial areas in the overall economy of the 
district, the City, and the overall region. 

Policy 8.1: Maintain industrial zones in the Northern Industrial and India Basin sub-districts. 
Policy 9.1: Increase employment in local industries. 

Recreation and Open Space 

Policy 13.1: Assure that new development adjacent to the shoreline capitalizes on the unique 
waterfront location by improving visual and physical access to the water in conformance with 
urban design policies. 

Policy 13.4: Provide new public open spaces along the shoreline - at Islais Creek, Pier 98, India 
Basin. 

Waterfront Land Use Plan 

Approved in June 1997, the Waterfront Land Use Plan (or, "Waterfront Plan")is a land use policy 
document governing property under the jurisdiction of the Port of San Francisco, generally from 
Fisherman's Wharf to India Basin. The Land Use Plan is intended to: 1) actively promote the 
continuation and expansion of industrial, commercial and recreational maritime actives; 2) support new 
and existing open space and public access; 3) recognize the structure of the Port for revenue-generating 
land uses to fund maritime activities, open space, and public activities along the waterfront; 4) adapt to 
fluctuating economic, social and political structures by identifying the range of acceptable uses for Pon 
properties; 5) encourage efficient use of currently underutilized Port properties by allowing a range of 
interim uses; and 6) establish a framework for streamlining the entitlement process for new development. 
The Plan also called for identification of City plans and policies in need of reassessment and 
modification to implement the plan; as noted above, the General Plan, Planning Code, and Zoning Map 
have been modified to ensure consistency with the Waterfront Plan. 

The Waterfront Plan has seven goals: 1) to encourage the Port to function as a working Port for cargo, 
shipping, fishing, passenger cruise ships, ship repair, ferry and excursion boats, recreational boating and 
other water-dependent activities; 2) to stimulate new investment that will revitalize the waterfront, create 
jobs, revenues, public amenities, and other benefits; 3) to promote diversity of activities and f)eople 
including maritime, commercial, entertainment, civic, open space, recreational and other waterfront 
activities for all to enjoy; 4) to provide access along the waterfront through a network of parks, plazas, 
walkways, open spaces, and integrated transportation improvements that would enhance enjoyment of 
the Bay environment; 5) to enhance the waterfront's historic character, while creating new opportunities 
for San Franciscans to integrate the waterfront into their everyday lives; 6) to ensure appropriate quality 
of urban design along the waterfront; and 7) to provide economic access to all people in San Francisco. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



33 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVreONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES- SETTING 

In addition, the Waterfront Plan includes land use objectives for five sub-areas, including the Southern 
Waterfront, that specifically address the overall goals and objectives of the land use plan. 

Southern Waterfront Sub-Area 

The Waterfront Land Use Plan contains the following objectives for the Southern Waterfront. 

• Maximize the utilization of existing cargo terminal facilities. 

• Pursue financing mechanisms to develop competitively prices maritime support facilities in the 
Southern Waterfront. 

• Maximize the productivity of Port assets through interim use of property reserved for maritime 
expansion. 

• Development of non-maritime land uses that would be beneficial to the Port and compatible with 
maritime activities should be considered in areas which are surplus to long-term maritime needs. 

• Promote non-maritime activities in and around three historic Union Iron Works buildings to facilitate 
the revitalization of an area that survives as an example of San Francisco's earliest maritime 
industry. 

• Reserve or improve areas which will provide opportunities for the protection of wildlife habitat and 
for passive and active recreational uses. 

• Enhance the public's appreciation of the waterfront by providing greater opportimities for access in a 
manner which does not compromise the efficiency of maritime operations. 

The Waterfront Plan specifies acceptable land uses by the location at which they may be developed in the 
Southern Waterfront, including new uses, those that may be continued as an interim use, or those that 
may be permitted as an accessory use. Generally, a wide variety of Maritime Uses (e.g., cargo shipping, 
maritime office and support services, and ceremonial berthing). Open Space/Recreation, and 
Commercial, and Other Uses, including general institutional and power plant uses, are permitted on 
specified sites throughout the project area. On Pier 84, west of Third Street on Islais Creek, a range of 
uses is permitted, including maritime, residential, and commercial. . No hotels are permitted in the 
Southern Waterfront. Acceptable uses for the project area are summarized in Appendix B, Land Use. 

Site-specific development standards are also provided in the Waterfront Plan to guide improvements to 
Opportunity Areas, which encourage a mixture of maritime, open space and public access activities 
which bring day and nighttime activities to the waterfront. The Plan contains Opportunity Areas in the 
Southern Waterfront at Pier 70, at the Western Pacific Site, and northeast of Cargo Way in the Piers 94- 
96 "backlands." 

Bay Conservation and Development Commission 

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) is a state agency with 
permit authority over the Bay and its shoreline. BCDC, created by the McAteer-Petris Act in 1965, has 
authority to regulate filling, dredging, and changes in use in San Francisco Bay and to regulate new 
development within the 100 feet of the shoreline to ensure that maximum feasible public access to the 



Case No. 1999.377E 



34 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES- SETTING 

Bay is provided. The Commission is also charged with ensuring that the limited amount of shoreline 
property suitable for regional high priority water-oriented uses (ports, water-related industry, water 
oriented recreation, airports and wildlife areas) is reserved for these purposes. Proposed land uses and 
structural changes are governed by policies regarding public access. BCDC can require, as conditions of 
permits, shoreline public access improvements consistent with a proposed project, such as, but not 
limited to, pathways, observation points, bicycle racks, parking, benches, landscaping, and signs. 

Of primary concern to BCDC is the placement of new "fill" (generally defined as any material in or over 
the water surface) in the Bay for the purposes of new development. The McAteer-Petris Act imposes 
very strict standards for the placement of fill. Placement of fill may be allowed only for uses that are: (1) 
necessary for public health, safety or welfare; (2) water-oriented uses, such as water-dependent industry, 
water-oriented recreation, public assembly, and the like; or (3) minor fill to improve shoreline 
appearance and public access. Fill must be the minimum necessary for the purpose and can be permitted 
only when no alternative upland location exists. With the exception of the proposed Illinois Street 
bridge, none of the project components would involve bay fill. 

Planning Documents 

Major BCDC planning documents applicable to the Southern Waterfront include the San Francisco Bay 
Plan, adopted in 1969 and since amended, which specifies goals, objectives and policies for existing and 
proposed waterfront land use and other BCDC jurisdictional areas; the Bay Area Seaport Plan, prepared 
in conjunction with the Metropolitan Transportation Conmiission, which is BCDC's overall policy for 
long-term growth and development of the Bay Area's six seaports, including the Port of San Francisco; 
and the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan, which indicates acceptable land uses in much 
greater detail than does the regional Bay Plan. The Special Area Plan designates all of the proposed 
Industry Group sites as port priority areas that should be reserved for marine terminals and directly 
related activities. However, the most recent update of the Seaport Plan (adopted April 18, 1996. and 
amended September 18, 1997), has removed the Western Pacific site from port priority area designation. 
Additionally, most of the Pier 90-94 backlands, identified for future mixed-use development in this 
SEIR, has also been removed from port priority area status. Most of the proposed Industr>' Group project 
components are proposed to be located outside the 100-foot band of BCDC jurisdiction, and thus would 
not require BCDC approval. Exceptions may include a portion of the RMC Pacific component at Pier 
80, a portion of the Mission Valley Rock component at Pier 92, and a portion of the British Pacific 
Aggregates component. In each case, however, the portion of the project component that would be 
within the shoreline band would be devoted to receiving of waterbome construction aggregate material, 
which would be considered a maritime use. The Illinois Street bridge over Islais Creek would fall within 
BCDC jurisdiction and would require a Coastal Zone consistency determination from BCDC under the 
federal Coastal Zone Management Act. 

The Port and BCDC recently completed a joint agreement concerning the acceptability of certain land 
uses, provisions for open space and public access, and other issues. However, this agreement applies to 
waterfront areas north of China Basin Channel and thus does not concern the Southern Waterfront. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



35 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



A. LAND USE. PLANS, AND POLICIES- SETTING 



The Public Trust Doctrine 

The City and County of San Francisco, through the Port Commission, holds title to Port lands in trust for 
the people of the State of California. This is because the State, upon admission to the United States in 
1850, was granted title to all submerged lands and tidelands, and Port property sits atop former tidelands 
that have been filled. The area now known as the Port of San Francisco was governed by a State Harbor 
Commission until 1968. At that time, the State adopted the Burton Act, which enabled transfer of the 
area to the City and County of San Francisco to be held in trust for the people of California for the 
purposes of maritime commerce, navigation and fisheries (the "public trust"), and uses that enhance 
natural resources or attract people to use and enjoy the Bay. The Burton Act granted the Port broad 
powers relative to the transferred property. There are, however, three key constraints: (1) property 
cannot be sold or otherwise transferred into private ownership, unless the State Legislature finds that the 
property is valueless for trust purposes, is proposed for a beneficial public use, and is a small portion of 
the total land held in trust by the Port; (2) the properties cannot be leased for a period exceeding 
66 years; and (3) the revenues derived from the operation of the leased property must be maintained in a 
separate account and used only for trust purposes. The Port Commission may determine that Port 
property is surplus to trust purposes and may exchange that land for other property and/or use it for other 
purposes determined by the Port Commission and the State Lands Commission to be in the public 
interest. It is also acceptable for the Port to establish short-term leases (generally 10 years or less) for 
non-trust purposes if the property is not required for trust purposes. The proposed Industry Group 
project components would be considered interim or maritime uses. 

IMPACTS 



SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

The City has not formally adopted significance standards for land use impacts, but it generally considers 
that the implementation of the proposed project would have a significant land use impact if it were to: 

• substantially disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community; 

• substantially conflict with established recreational, educational, religious, or scientific uses; or 

• have a substantial impact on the existing character of the community. 

The project could also have a significant effect if it would conflict with any applicable land use plan, 
policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the 
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of 
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, resulting in an adverse physical impact on the 
environment. Conflict with a General Plan policy does not, in itself, indicate a significant effect on the 
enviroimient within the meaning of CEQA. As stated in the State CEQA Guidelines, "Effects analyzed 
under CEQA must be related to a physical change" (Sec. 15358(b)). To the extent that physical impacts 
may result from such conflicts, such physical impact? are analyzed in this SEIR. The General Plan 



Case No. 1999.377E 



36 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES- IMPACTS 



contains many policies, which may address different goals. Upon reviewing projects requiring its 
approval, the Planning Commission must decide whether, on balance, the project is consistent with the 
General Plan. In general, potential conflicts with the General Plan are considered by decision-makers (in 
this case, the Port Commission will be the primary decision-maker concerning the proposed Industry 
Group leases and potential future on other Port lands), independently of the environmental review 
process, as part of the decision to approve, modify or disapprove a proposed project. Any potential 
conflict not identified here could be considered in that context, and would not alter the physical 
environmental effects of the proposed project. 



IMPACT ANALYSIS 

This section describes potential effects of the proposed project on land use, and local plans and policies. 
Potential effects are described separately for each of the project components as defined in Chapter II, 
Project Description. 

Industry Group Projects 
Land Use 

Six private entities would lease sites or facilities in the project area. All but one of these operations 
would be related to the construction industry, and that one entity proposes to lease a site for bus storage, 
maintenance and repair. These facilities are interim uses assumed to have leases with the Port at least to 
2015. Most of the proposed lessees are currently located at existing sites at other locations in 
San Francisco, and would relocate to the project area. Two of the existing sites (Bode and RMC Pacific) 
are within the land use study area at Third and 16th Streets and Third and Mariposa Streets, respectively, 
while ISG Resources currently imports a small amount of fly ash to the project area. Coach USA is at 
8th and Harrison in the South of Market Area, and Waste Resource Technologies formerly operated a 
construction materials recycling facility at Candlestick Point in Bayview-Hunters Point. In addition. 
Mission Valley Rock currently operates a dredge sand processing facility at Pier 92, adjacent to its 
proposed marine aggregate terminal and asphalt plant. The relocation and location of the Industry Group 
operations would be a continuation, rehabilitation or expansion of industrial uses in the Southern 
Waterfront. Therefore, the Industry Group component of the project would not disrupt or divide the 
physical arrangement or impact existing character of other industrial uses in the project area or nearby 
residential communities. The closest residential conmiunities are Dogpatch. located one fourth mile west 
of Third Street, and portions of Bay view-Hunters Point, located one-half mile south of Evans Avenue. 

The majority of the Industry Group components would include a maritime component in their operations, 
and therefore would be considered maritime tenants of the Port. RMC Pacific. British Pacific 
Aggregates, and Mission Valley Rock would import raw materials for concrete and asphalt production by 
ship and barge, and ISG Resources is likely to use waterbome transportation in the future. Bode Gravel 
and Mission Valley Rock (and potentially British Pacific Aggregates), would produce construction 
■ materials using these waterbome raw materials. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



37 

ESA 990267 



Southern W aterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES- IMPACTS 

None of the existing Industry Group projects would conflict with established recreation and open space 
uses in the area. Four of the projects would be located at least partially in existing warehouse or 
industrial buildings (Mission Valley Rock, ISG Resources, Waste Resources Technologies, and Coach 
USA). The remaining facilities would be located at project area sites that do not encroach on existing 
recreation uses at Warm Water Cove and Islais Creek, and wetlands located near Pier 94: Pier 80 (RMC 
Pacific), Pier 92 (Bode Gravel), and Pier 94 (British Pacific Aggregates). In light of the above, the 
Industry Group uses would have a less-than-significant land use impact. 

Plans and Policies 

The Industry Group project components address several Waterfront Plan objectives for the Southern 
Waterfront subarea. The Industry Group project components would help maximize the utilization of 
existing cargo terminal facilities. Five of the Industry Group members are relocating to the project site 
to maximize access to shipping facilities, either for immediate or potential future cargo shipping use. 
The Industry Group projects would also maximize the productivity of Port assets through interim use of 
property reserved for maritime expansion. Given the heavy industrial operations of the proposed 
facilities, none of the projects would provide on-site public open space access. Development of the 
Waste Resources Technologies site would promote non-maritime activities around the historic Union 
Iron Works buildings as stated in the Southern Waterfront land use objectives. 

The Industry Group project would not obviously conflict with applicable policies of the Central 
Waterfront Plan or the South Bayshore Plan. Development of the projects would be consistent with 
Central Waterfront Plan Objective 1 and its policies. Objectives 15, 16, 19, and 21, and with South 
Bayshore Plan Policy 8.1, to maintain and expand industrial activities in the Central Basin and Islais 
Creek subareas of the Central Waterfront and the Northern Industrial and India Basin sub-districts of the 
South Bayshore. The projects would not create substantial new employment as most of the facilities 
would transfer existing employees from existing San Francisco or Bay Area locations. However there 
could be a marginal increase in employment by these local industries as called for by Policy 9.1 of the 
South Bayshore Plan. Relocation of existing concrete plants from the Mission Bay area would be 
consistent with Central Waterfront Plan Objective 3, Policy 10, to assist firms displaced from other parts 
of San Francisco. 

The Industry Group Projects would include the construction of six facilities primarily for the production, 
shipping, distribution, and storage of materials used in the construction industry, including concrete, 
asphalt, fly ash, sand and gravel. In addition, a construction materials recovery (recycling) facility and a 
charter bus storage yard and service/repair facility would be developed. Each of these facilities are 
acceptable uses under the Maritime and Other Uses Land Use categories of the Waterfront Land Use 
Plan Southern Waterfront sub-area (refer to Appendix B, for a detailed listing of acceptable uses for the 
project area). 

As described in Chapter II, Project Description, all of the Industry Group components are in a M-2 
(Heavy Industrial) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and all would be consistent with the 



Case No. 1999.377E 



38 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES- IMPACTS 



M-2 Use District and the 40-X Height and Bulk District.^^ Each of the Lidustry Group components must 
obtain Port Commission approval of a lease authorizing the proposed uses, and any non-maritime lease 
exceeding $1 million in Port revenue or with a term of 10 years or more would also require approval by 
the Board of Supervisors. BCDC approval would be required for all components within 100 feet of the 
shoreline. Other approvals required would include a General Storm Water Permit from the Regional 
Water Quality Control Board (with a requirement to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan), 
and industrial facilities such as the proposed concrete and asphalt plants would require an Authority to 
Construct and a Permit to Operate from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. City permits 
would include an industrial sewer discharge permit fi-om the Public Utilities Commission and, where 
applicable, a Hazardous Material Storage Permit from Fire Department, as well as building permit(s) 
from the Port. 

As noted in the Land Use discussion above, most of the Industry Group components would include a 
maritime component in their operations, either import or use of construction-related aggregate materials, 
or both. The only two components without maritime activities. Coach USA's bus storage and 
maintenance facility and Waste Resource Technologies' materials recovery facility, would be interim 
uses and would not displace any maritime activity. Therefore, the Industry Group components would not 
interfere with the port priority area designations of their sites in the Bay Area Seaport Plan. 

In light of the above, the Industry Group components of the project would not obviously or substantially 
conflict with applicable plans and policies. 

Illinois Street Intermodal Bridge 
Land Use 

The proposed Illinois Street bridge would be constructed across the Islais Creek channel, one block east 
of the existing Levon Hagoop Nishkian drawbridge on Third Street. The existing drawbridge would 
remain operational, but would no longer be operated except for testing and maintenance, as the proposed 
new bridge would be a "lift-segment" bridge designed to be opened only infrequently, primarily for 
passage of maintenance vessels and barges. The proposed new bridge would provide the following three 
functions: 1) a direct rail connection between the Port's North Container Terminal facilities on the north 
side of Islais Creek at Pier 80 and the South and Intermodal Container Terminal facilities on the south 
side of Islais Creek; 2) a more direct route for rail cargo to and from Pier 80, to avoid a circuitous route 
that currently extends north through the Mission Bay development site ; and 3) a direct truck connection 
between the two container facilities, avoiding the need for trucks to travel on Third Street. In addition, 
the bridge would provide for bicycle access in the traffic lanes when no trains are crossing the bridge. 



Although some Industry Group components would exceed 40 feet in height, these features would cither consist of existing 
buildings that would not be substantially modified or, in the case of concrete batching plants, would be exempt from the 
height limit (Planning Code Section 260(b)(2)(M)). 



Case No. 1999.377E 



39 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVrRONMENfTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES- IMPACTS 

The new bridge would improve the connection between the two container facilities at the Port. The 
Illinois Street bridge would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community, 
nor would it affect the existing character of the community. The bridge could enhance recreational uses 
by improving bicycle access to the Islais Creek Channel and Warm Water Cove. The bridge would also 
be a future link to the San Francisco Bay Trail. Currently, portions of Illinois Street and Cargo Way are 
designated Bay Trail Bicycle Routes, and the bridge would connect these roadways. 

The new lift-segment bridge would not be opened to permit the passage of large pleasure craft or 
sailboats, which can currently be accommodated by the existing Third Street drawbridge. However, 
Department of Public Works bridge logs shows that the Third Street bridge is raised only about six times 
per month, including once weekly for testing the mechanism (which would continue) and twice a month 
for passage of a vessel used in conducting water quality sampling by the Clean Water Program (the 
City's wastewater treatment agency). If the need remains to continue water sampling following 
construction of the new bridge, this activity could be accomplished using a smaller skiff, which could 
pass beneath the new bridge and the existing bridge, even if closed. The only other existing activity that 
requires opening the existing Third Street bridge is periodic passage - about twice a year - by one of the 
Fire Department's fire boats so the crew can take depth soundings in the western portion of Islais Creek 
to ensure that the creek remains navigable for the fire boats. As noted in the Project Description, 
however, fire boat access will no longer be necessary with completion of the new bridge, which includes 
improvements in the water supply system west of Third Street for firefighting. 

Small recreation craft such as canoes, kayaks, an other small vessels (e.g., rowboats) would be able to 
pass beneath the new lift-segment bridge while it is closed. These vessels could use the channel both 
east and west of Third and Illinois Streets, as well as gain access to a ramp and public launch for hand- 
launch craft along Islais Creek west of Third Street. The elimination of larger commercial vessels and 
larger pleasure craft from navigation of the channel at this location is not considered a substantial 
conflict with established recreational uses, as there has been no such activity for more than 10 years, nor 
does the Port believe there is currently substantial demand for the use of the channel west of Third Street 
by larger vessels. The Port has jurisdiction over the Islais Creek channel and has no plans to build or 
approve new facilities acconmiodating large pleasure craft or sailboats west of Third Street. Therefore, 
for all of these reasons, the Illinois Street lift-segment bridge component would have a less-than- 
significant impact on land use. 

Plans and Policies 

The Illinois Street Intermodal Bridge would not substantially or obviously conflict with applicable 
objectives of the San Francisco General Plan or the Waterfront Land Use Plan objectives for the 
Southern Waterfi-ont. The bridge would help maximize the utilization of existing cargo terminal 
facilities at Piers 80 and 94-96 by creating more direct and efficient rail and truck access to the Port 
container facilities on the north and south sides of Islais Creek. As proposed, the bridge would not 
include sidewalks, because land uses north and south of the bridge are and will continue to be largely 
devoted to industrial activity, and because there are sfdewalks on the existing Third Street bridge, one 



Case No. 1999.377E 



40 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES- IMPACTS 

block west. Therefore, the bridge would improve waterfront and shoreline access only by providing for 
bicycle access across Islais Creek.^^ The bridge would be an acceptable maritime use as it supports 
marine cargo and handling facilities (refer to Appendix B, for a detailed listing of acceptable uses for the 
project area). 

Construction of the Illinois Street bridge would also not conflict with applicable Transportation policies 
of the Central Waterfront Plan or South Bayshore Plan, as it would improve rail access to and between 
the Port's container terminals and improve truck access between industrial areas and freeway 
interchanges, thereby enhancing circulation in the area. As noted, the Illinois Street bridge would 
preclude active use of the Islais Creek Turning Basin - west of Third Street - for boating activities, 
except for very small craft. 

As noted in Chapter II, Project Description, design and construction of the Illinois Street bridge would be 
subject to approval of a bridge permit by the U.S. Coast Guard, which must determine the future 
navigational needs of Islais Creek before it issues a permit. The Coast Guard would determine whether a 
lift-segment span is appropriate. The bridge would also require approval by BCDC because it would be 
constructed over the Bay and within the 100-foot band along the San Francisco Bay shoreline over which 
BCDC has jurisdiction. BCDC would also be required to find that the bridge is consistent with the 
federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Approval would also be required from the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (including consultation with the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service) and Section 10 of the federal Rivers and Harbors Act. In addition, the bridge 
would require water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, under 
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and would probably require a Stream Alteration Permit from the 
California Department of Fish and Game. Because of the federal action and funding, environmental 
review of the bridge must also include completion of a document prepared pursuant to the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

No substantial conflicts with BCDC policies or other regulatory requirements have been identified that 
would prevent a finding of consistency under the Coastal Zone Management Act or other regulatory 
approvals. Further consultation with agencies with jurisdiction may lead to minor modifications of the 
Illinois Street bridge proposal or imposition of specific conditions of approval. Considerations by other 
agencies would also necessitate additional public notice and afford additional opportunities for public 
input. 

Potential Future Port Development 
Land Use 

Consistent with the Waterfront Land Use Plan, Pier 80 and Piers 94-96 would support increased future 
maritime activity for both containerized and non-containerized cargo. Some of the additional cargo 

An existing open space feature along the north side of Islais Creek permits pedestrians to travel between Third and Illinois 
Streets. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



41 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



in. E^fVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICES- IMPACTS 

shipping would be associated with cargo activity proposed by several Industry Group members, 
including the British Pacific Aggregates lease at Pier 94, and could result from future cargo shipping 
activity associated with proposed Port leases by Bode, Mission Valley Rock, ISG Resources and RMC 
Pacific. These uses would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the adjacent Port uses or 
nearby residential and commercial communities, as they would represent a continuation of existing Port 
activity. The Port uses would therefore have a less-than-significant land use impact. 

With regard to non-cargo activity on Port lands. Pier 70 would be developed into approximately 200,000 
square feet of new Maritime Industrial uses and an additional 200,000 square feet of General Industrial 
uses within the Pier 70 Maritime Reserve Area. As defined by the Waterfi-ont Land Use Plan, Maritime 
Industrial uses could include equipment storage and warehousing uses, whereas General Industry could 
include recycling operations, automobile repair, bio-remediation, sand and gravel operations, 
transmission facilities and manufacturing operations. These uses would be a continuation and expansion 
of existing maritime and industrial operations on Port property in the Southern Waterfiront. These uses 
would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of project area uses or nearby residential 
commimities, as development would occur entirely on Port property near similar maritime and industrial 
uses. 

The Pier 70 Mixed Use Opportunity Area would be developed into a mixed-use area including 
approximately 610,000 square feet of commercial office and/or research and development uses; 
100,000 square feet of retail and other commercial space; and 240,000 square feet of public access and 
recreational maritime uses. Development of the Pier 70 Mixed Use Opportunity Area would introduce 
new, non-maritime related uses in the Southern Waterfront. However such uses would not conflict with 
nearby maritime-related and industrial uses. Mixed use development on the Pier 70 backlands would not 
disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the project area uses or nearby residential communities. 
The new uses introduced on the Pier 70 backlands would change the existing character in this section of 
the Southern Waterfront area, but would have a less-than-significant impact on the existing land use 
character of Southern Waterfront uses, and would have no adverse impact on the character of 
surrounding residential communities. Rather, the mixed-use area would serve as a buffer between 
maritime and industrial uses nearest the water and residential uses on Potrero Hill and in Dogpatch. The 
creation of 240,000 square feet of public access and recreational uses would create new recreational 
opportunities for nearby residents and the City as a whole. These uses would not conflict with 
established recreation uses at Warm Water Cove and Islais Creek. 

The Piers 90-94 Backlands areas would be developed into a mix of about 650,000 square feet of light 
industrial uses. In addition, approximately 1 million square feet of commercial oflice and/or research 
and development uses would be developed in two- to three-story buildings, with landscaped open space. 
This type of office park development would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of existing 
Port uses, or nearby residential communities, but would affect the existing character of the area. This 
impact is not considered to be substantial, and would be consistent with development in the adjacent 
India Basin Industrial Park, located inmiediately southwest of the backlands site, across Cargo Way. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



42 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES- IMPACTS 

Potential impacts on the character of the area would be minimized by the configuration of the site plan 
and architectural design of the development consistent with the Design and Access Element of the 
Waterfront Plan. The provision of landscaped areas would create new open space opportunities, and 
would not be in conflict with established recreational areas in Warm Water Cove, Islais Creek, and Pier 
98 (Heron's Head Park). As with the Pier 70 Mixed Use Opportunity Area, these office and research and 
development uses would serve as a buffer between maritime and industrial uses along the Bay and 
residential areas on the hill south of Evans Avenue. For the above reasons, this impact would be less 
than significant. 

Plans and Policies 

Development of currently unprogrammed Port lands would not substantially conflict with adopted plans 
and policies. Maritime related development on Piers 70, 80 and 94-96 would help maximize the 
utilization of existing cargo terminal facilities. Mixed use commercial, office and retail development on 
Pier 70 and Pier 94 backlands would promote non-maritime land uses that could be beneficial to the Port 
and compatible with maritime activities in areas which are surplus to long-term maritime needs, although 
introduction of office or research and development uses outside the Cargo Way, Westem Pacific, or 
Pier 70 Opportunity Areas would require amendment of the Waterfront Plan to permit such uses. (Retail 
uses could also be permitted, as accessory uses, at Warm Water Cove, Pier 80, and Piers 94-96.) 
Development of the Mixed Use Opportunity Area at Pier 70 east of Illinois Street would promote non- 
maritime activities around the historic Union Iron Works buildings, and facilitate the re vital ization of an 
area that survives as an example of San Francisco's earliest maritime industry. 

The creation of new public access, recreational maritime uses, and landscaped open space in the mixed 
use opportunity areas would be consistent with the Southern Waterfront objectives to improve areas 
which will provide opportunities for passive and active recreational uses, and would enhance the public's 
appreciation of the waterfront by providing greater opportunities for access in a manner which does not 
compromise the efficiency of maritime operations. 

Development of the unprogrammed Port lands would not generally conflict with the policies of the 
Central Waterfront Plan or South Bayshore Plan. Specifically, maritime development at Pier 70 would 
address Central Waterfront Plan objectives and policies to maintain and expand industrial activities in 
the Central Basin and Islais Creek subareas, and to maintain and develop additional uses on land 
determined to be surplus to industrial and maritime needs. Additional maritime activity at Piers 94-96 
would be consistent with South Bayshore Plan Policy 8. 1 to maintain industrial zones in the Northern 
Industrial and India Basin sub-areas. This component of the project would also have the opportunity to 
increase employment in local industries as called for in Policy 9. 1 of the South Bayshore Plan. The 
creation of 240,000 square feet of new public access and recreational uses near Pier 70 would be 
consistent with Central Waterfront Plan Objective 9. 

As noted in the setting, the most recent update of the Bay Ajea Seaport Plan removed the Westem 
Pacific site from port priority area designation and most of the Pier 90-94 backlands has also been 



Case No. 1999.377E 



43 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONME^fTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



A. LAND USE, PLANS, AND POLICIES- IMPACTS 



removed from port priority area status. Therefore, anticipated future Port development would not 
interfere with the port priority area designations of their sites in the Bay Area Seaport Plan. 



REFERENCES - Land Use, Plans And Policies 

California Energy Commission, 2000, at www.energv.ca.|gov/siting cases/potrero/index.html 

Port of San Francisco, Waterfront Land Use Plan, adopted June 1997. (Republished January 2000). 

City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco General Plan, including Central Waterfront Plan 
(amended through January 1998), and South Bayshore Plan, July 1995. 



B. TRANSPORTATION 

SETTING 

Within the project area. Third Street is designated in the Transportation Element of the San Francisco 
General Plan as a Major Arterial and a Transit Preferential ("Transit Important") Street. Major arterials 
are defined as "cross-town thoroughfares whose primary function is to link districts within the City and 
to distribute traffic from and to the freeways" (Transportation Element, Table 1). On Transit-Important 
Streets, "the emphasis should be on moving people and goods, rather than on moving vehicles" 
(Transportation Element, Table 4). Third Street is also designated a Major Arterial within the County 
Congestion Management Network, established consistent with state congestion management legislation, 
and is included in the City's Metropolitan Transportation (MTS) street network, which is part of a 
regional network that includes streets and highways that meet criteria established by the Metropolitan 
Transportation Commission. Cesar Chavez (Army) Street and Evans Avenue (west of Third Street) are 
also Major Arterials in the General Plan and Congestion Management Network and are MTS streets. 
Other MTS streets include Cargo Way and Jeimings Street between Evans and Cargo; Evans (east of 
Third), Cargo, and Jennings are Secondary Arterials in the General Plan. Illinois Street between 
Mariposa and 24th Streets, Third Street south of 24th Street, and Cargo Way are part of the Citywide 
Pedestrian Network by virtue of being on the route of the Bay Trail. Third Street is also a Neighborhood 
Pedestrian (Neighborhood Commercial) Street and a Bicycle Route (Route 5). Cesar Chavez Street 
(Route 60), Evans Avenue (Route 68), Mariposa Street (Route 23), and Phelps and Indiana Streets 
(Route 7) are also bicycle routes. 

Third Street has three travel lanes in each direction, with left turn pockets at Cesar Chavez Street 
(northbound) and Cargo Way and Evans Avenue (southbound). Cargo Way has two travel lanes in each 
direction, divided by a median. Other streets in the area have a single lane in each direction. On-street 
parking is generally permitted, with certain exceptions, throughout the study area. On-street parking is 
available in most parts of the study area. Existing levels of service at study intersections in the project 
area are given in Table 4, p. 53. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



44 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



B. TRANSPORTATION - SETTING 



San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) service in the project area is limited. The primary service is 
via the 15-Third line, which links Visitacion Valley with downtown, Chinatown, North Beach, and 
Fisherman's Wharf. Crosstown service is provided on the 19-Polk line, which operates on Evans 
Avenue; the 48-Quintara/24th Street, which operates on 22nd Street; and the 22-Fillmore, which runs on 
18th Street. The Caltrain peninsula commute service has a station at 22nd and Pennsylvania Streets; not 
all trains stop at the 22nd Street Station. 

Pedestrian traffic is relatively light in the study area. Third Street has 10-foot sidewalks on each side, 
and Illinois Street (north of 25th Street) also has sidewalks on each side. There are also sidewalks on the 
existing Third Street drawbridge over Islais Creek. Most of the numbered east-west streets have 
sidewalks on at least one side. South of Islais Creek, Cargo Way has sidewalks on each side, but 
Amador Street does not have sidewalks. Third Street has a fair amount of bicycle traffic, particularly 
commuters to and from downtown. Counts conducted in 1996 indicated approximately 50 bicycles per 
hour during both the morning and afternoon peak hours (FTA and San Francisco Planning Department, 
1998, p. 3-25). As noted in the first paragraph under Setting, above, there are several designated bicycle 
routes in the project area. The only striped bicycle lane at present is on Cesar Chavez Street, between 
Third Street and Evans Avenue. 

PLANNED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS 

The Third Street Light Rail Extension project, scheduled for construction beginning in 2001, will extend 
Muni Metro light rail service from the Caltrain Station at Fourth and Townsend Streets along Third 
Street to Visitacion Valley. This segment is expected to be operational by 2(X)4. In the project area, the 
light rail tracks will be in a dedicated center median of Third Street, and thus construction of the light rail 
line will remove one travel lane in each direction from Third Street, leaving two vehicle lanes in each 
direction, with a parking lane on either side, except between Cesar Chavez Street and Cargo Way, where 
parking is not permitted. On-street parking will also be eliminated on both sides of Third Street where 
station platforms are constructed. In the project area, stations will be constructed at Mariposa Street, 
20th Street, 23rd Street, Cesar Chavez Street, and Evans Avenue. As part of the light rail project, all 
major intersections will be signalized and signal timings adjusted; lane configurations are also approved 
at several of the intersections analyzed in this SEIR. On-streel parking will also be eliminated where 
left-turn lanes are created. These changes are described in Appendix C. The light rail project also will 
include a loop track at Third and Eighteenth Streets that will allow light rail vehicles to turn around and 
head back north on Third Street after passing through the Mission Bay area, and a light rail vehicle 
storage and maintenance facility at the Western Pacific site at 25th and Illinois Streets. 

Another planned Municipal Railway project is the construction of a new bus storage yard at C^sar 
Chavez and Indiana Streets, on the north side of Islais Creek west of Third Street. This yard will replace 
Muni's existing Kirkland bus yard at Powell and North Point Streets, near Fisherman's Wharf, and will 
be adjacent to an existing interim bus yard at Marin and Indiana Streets. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



45 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



B. TRANSPORTATION - SETTING 



Traffic signals were previously identified as mitigation for the approved Mission Bay project at two 
other currently unsignalized intersections studied in this SEIR: Mariposa and Minnesota Streets 
(assumed in this analysis to be signalized by 2003) and Mariposa Street and the 1-280 southbound on- 
ramp (assumed to be signalized by 2015). In addition, the Mission Bay project will allow traffic to cross 
Mariposa Street to the north at both the 1-280 northbound off-ramp and at Minnesota Street, resulting in a 
fourth approach being added at each of these two intersections. 

The Illinois Street Intermodal Bridge over Islais Creek, a component of the project analyzed in this 
SEIR, will include improvements to Illinois Street between Islais Creek and Marin Streets, where the 
pavement is narrow and in poor condition, to accommodate truck traffic crossing the proposed new 
bridge. Separately, Illinois Street will also be improved between Cesar Chavez and 25th Streets - a 
block that is currently unpaved - as part of the Muni light rail vehicle yard described above. This SEIR 
assumes that the remaining block of Illinois Street that is not fully improved, between Cesar Chavez and 
Marin Streets, where only one lane is currently paved, will be fully improved by the time the Illinois 
Street bridge is completed. 



IMPACTS26 



SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

City policy has been that a project is considered to have a significant effect on the environment if it 
would cause a signalized intersection to deteriorate to an unacceptable level of service (i.e., from Level 
of Service (LOS) D or better to LOS E or F, or from LOS E to LOS F),27 interfere with existing 
transportation systems causing substantial alteration to circulation patterns or causing major traffic 
hazards, or contribute substantially ("considerably") to cumulative traffic increases that cause 
intersections that would otherwise operate at acceptable levels to deteriorate to unacceptable levels. The 
City has not formally adopted significance criteria for potential impacts related to transit, but City policy 
has been that a project would have a significant effect if it would cause a substantial increase in transit 
demand that caimot be accommodated by existing or proposed transit capacity, resulting in unacceptable 
levels of transit service, or cause a substantial increase in transit delay due to transit/auto conflicts. 
Regarding parking, San Francisco General Plan policies emphasize the importance of public transit use 
and discourage the provision of facilities that encourage automobile use. Therefore, the creation of, or 
increase in, parking demand resulting from a proposed project that cannot be met by existing or proposed 
parking facilities would not itself be considered a significant effect. The City has not adopted 
significance criteria for pedestrian or bicycle impacts. For this analysis, the project would have a 



This analysis is based on a Transportation Study prepared for the proposed project: Wilbur Smith Associates, San Francisco 
Southern Waterfront Supplemental EIR Transportation Study, September 22, 2000 This report is available for review at the 
San Francisco Planning Department, Major Environmental Analysis section, 30 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 4150, as part of 
Project File No. 1999.377E. 

The City has no significance criteria for unsignalized intersections. For this analysis, a significant effect would occur if an 
unsignalized intersection were to deteriorate such that more than one approach operates at LOS E or LOS F and the 
intersection would meet the Caltrans Minimum Vehicle Volume Warrant or Peak-Hour Warrant for signalization. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



46 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



B. TRANSPORTATION - IMPACTS 



significant effect if it were to result in substantial pedestrian overcrowding, create particularly hazardous 
conditions for pedestrians or bicyclists, or otherwise substantially interfere with pedestrian and bicycle 
accessibility. Generally, construction-period transportation impacts would not be considered significant 
because they would be temporary. 

IMPACT ANALYSIS 

This analysis examines transportation conditions for three time frames: Existing-plus-Project, when the 
Industry Group project components would be in operation; 2003, when the Illinois Street intermodal 
bridge would be in place and the Muni Third Street light rail line is anticipated to begin operations;^^ and 
2015, by which time the Future Port Development described in the Project Description would occur. The 
Existing-plus-Project and 2003 analyses also include some amount of future cargo shipping and other 
activity on Port lands (see "Cargo Shipping" on p. 23 of the Project Description) in order to capture 
effects of Phase I of the project, while the remainder of Future Port Development (2015) constitutes 
Phase II. For each future analysis period, additional background, or cumulative, development is also 
assumed. For 2003, partial development of the Mission Bay project, located north of the study area, is 
assumed, while full buildout of Mission Bay is assumed for 2015. Development to varying degrees is 
also assumed in connection with the redevelopment of Hunters Point shipyard and the larger Bayview- 
Hunters Point neighborhood, both of which are the subject of plans prepared by the San Francisco 
Redevelopment Agency: the Hunters Point plan is approved, while neighborhood-wide redevelopment 
plan is currently being drafted. 

Trip generation for the Industry Group project components would be primarily a function of the volume 
of construction aggregate material (concrete and, potentially, asphalt concrete) produced. (This is 
contrasted with the traffic analysis of more "typical" land uses, such as office or retail uses, for which 
trip generation is normally determined on the basis of standard per-square-foot factors.) Therefore, the 
analysis is based to a large degree on production estimates provided by the Industry Group. It should be 
noted that a substantial volume of the Phase I vehicle trips related to the Industry Group project 
components are currently being made, under existing conditions, to and from other parts of 
San Francisco. For example, delivery of concrete is made from the existing Bode Gravel Company and 
RMC Pacific Materials plants located on Third Street at 16th Street and at Mariposa Street, respectively. 
Existing delivery of asphalt concrete is made to locations in San Francisco from plants in Berkeley and 
in Brisbane. For purposes of a conservative analysis, and because these trips originate at the fringe of or 
outside the study area, no attempt was made to subtract existing trips from the roadway network, with the 
sole exception being existing trips made between Pier 92 and the concrete plants for the purpose of 
hauling sand dredged from San Francisco Bay. Other than these dredge sand trips, which currently 
originate within the study area, all trips described in the Travel Demand Analysis, below, were assigned 
to the transportation network as new trips. 



Jhe analysis was conducted consistent with the original schedule for the Third Street Light Rail Project, which anticipated a 
start of service in 2003. The current schedule calls for start of operations in 2004. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



47 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



B. TRANSPORTATION - IMPACTS 



While the change in location of the production of construction aggregates would not necessarily result in 
any change in the demand for these products in San Francisco and the northern Peninsula, another factor 
was considered in the transportation analysis that would affect traffic volumes, particularly truck traffic: 
the method by which raw materials (sand, rock, cement, liquid asphalt cement) would be brought to the 
production plants. Currently, most aggregate is brought by truck from local quarries, primarily in the 
East Bay. However, one of the objectives of the Industry Group members is to relocate to sites with 
maritime access, and given that the supply of aggregate in local quarries is anticipated to decline over the 
analysis period covered in this SEIR, this analysis assumes a shift from truck to ship transportation 
would occur over time. Therefore, in the Phase I analysis, 50 percent of the aggregate material required 
for ready-mix concrete production (other than "dredge sand" that is already brought by barge from 
within San Francisco Bay) would arrive by ship at one or more of the Industry Group facilities as 
proposed in the near term by Industry Group members. (British Pacific Aggregates, Mission Valley 
Rock, and RMC Pacific Materials would all have the capability to import construction aggregates.) The 
remaining 50 percent of concrete aggregate would continue to be brought by truck from the East Bay. 
For production of asphalt concrete, which would be newly manufactured in San Francisco by Mission 
Valley Rock, all of the aggregate material would be conveyed by ship. By 2015, which is the horizon 
year for this analysis, 80 percent of the aggregate to be used in ready-mix concrete is assumed to be 
delivered by ship. Further explanation of the assumptions regarding the production of construction - 
aggregate is provided in Appendix A. 

Travel Demand Analysis 

For Phase I of the project (primarily the Industry Group components), the vast majority of traffic 
generated would be truck traffic in connection with the production of construction aggregates and 
shipping activity at the Port.29 Employee traffic would make up a relatively small percentage of this 
traffic. For this analysis, truck trip generation and the assignment of those trucks to the roadway network 
(i.e., the direction of their travel) were based on information firom the Industry Group. Employee trips to 
and from work were based on forecast employment at the Industry Group facilities. The means of travel 
(auto, transit, etc.) and the direction of travel was based on the standard methodology contained in the 
Planning Department's Interim Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for Environmental Review, 
although the percentage of employees expected to use transit was reduced by half from the typical 
percentage for the southeastern part of San Francisco (and the percentage driving increased accordingly), 
because of the relatively remote location of the project area vis-a-vis transit service and the early start 
time for many construction industry-related land uses. The resulting formulae assumed that about 
82 percent of employees would drive to work (either alone or in carpools), while about 9 percent would 
use transit, and the remaining 9 percent would use other means of travel, including walking and 
bicycling. 



The Illinois Street bridge would not generate any traffic, although it would result in redistribution of traffic with destinations 
accessible via the bridge. See the intersection level of service results in Table 4, p. 53. 



Case No. I999.377E 



48 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

B. TRANSPORTATION - IMPACTS 

Table 2 presents a summary of trip generation for Phase I of the project. As indicated in Table 2, the 
Industry Group project components would generate about 2,200 vehicle trips (a trip is one way; two trips 
make up a round trip) per day, of which about 1,850 would be truck trips. In the morning (a.m.) peak 
hour, the Industry Group components would generate about 480 vehicle trips, while they would generate 
about 325 vehicle trips in the afternoon (p.m.) peak hour. 

An estimated 210 additional daily vehicle trips, including about 180 truck trips, would be made to and 
from the project airea by the time the Industry Group components are operational, including about 
50 a.m. peak-hour vehicle trips and about 20 p.m. peak-hour vehicle trips. These trips would be 
generated by other anticipated uses on Port land, including additional cargo shipping at Pier 96 beyond 
that currently existing and future industrial activity on the Western Pacific site. By 2003, when the 
Illinois Street bridge would be in place and the Muni Third Street light rail line would begin service, 
nearly 1,700 additional vehicle trips, including almost 1,300 truck trips, are anticipated to be made to and 
from the project area each day on Port land, including about 125 a.m. peak-hour vehicle trips and about 
1 10 p.m. peak-hour vehicle trips. 

By 2015, overall daily vehicle trip generation would nearly quintuple, largely as a result of future 
development that would occur on port property, including more than 1.6 million square feet of office and 
research and development space at the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity Area and the Pier 90-94 
backlands, and 100,000 square feet of retail space at the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity Area. Also 
included is more than 1 million square feet of light, general, and maritime industrial uses at Pier 70 and 
Piers 90-94. (See the discussion of Future Port Development in Chapter II, Project Description, p. 22. 
for additional discussion of these assumptions.) This future port development would generate more than 
14,000 daily vehicle trips, nearly 1,800 vehicle trips in the a.m. peak hour and more than 1,700 vehicle 
trips in the p.m. peak hour. In addition, anticipated growth in cargo shipping would increase daily 
vehicle trip generation from Port activity by nearly 50 percent (to approximately 2,450) and p.m. peak- 
hour vehicle trip generation by 55 percent (to about 170), compared to 2003 levels; a.m. peak-hour trip 
generation would more than double, compared to 2003, to approximately 265 vehicle trips. Industry 
Group truck traffic would also increase because, while the percentage of raw materials brought in by ship 
would increase, the increased production volume assumed by 2015 would result in more local truck trips 
by cement mixers and asphalt trucks making deliveries. Vehicle trip generation for 2015 is presented in 
Table 3. 

Traffic Impacts 

The traffic analysis focuses on local streets and intersections because, as noted in the discussion of 
Travel Demand, most of the traffic generated by Phase I of the project (primarily the Industry Group 
project components) would involve truck traffic between the project area and points within 
San Francisco and on the northern Peninsula. The analysis evaluated 17 intersections throughout the 



Case No. 1999.377E 



49 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

B. TRANSPORTATION - IMPACTS 



TABLE 2 

PHASE I PROJECT VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION (NEAR TERM AND 2003) 





Daily Vehicle Trips 


A.M. Peak Hour Trips 


P.M. Peak Hour Trips 


Trin Orioin or Op^tinatinn^ 


Trucks^ Employees 


Trucks'' Employees 


Trucks'' 


Employees 


Industry Group 














Bode Gravel (Pier 92) 


347 


30 


66 


7 


17 


7 


RMC Pacific (Pier 80) 


347 


34 


66 


8 


17 


8 




O 1 "2 




A 1 

41 


D 


11 


5 


ISG Resources (Pier 92) 


14 


18 


3 


4 





4 


British Pacific (Pier 94)<= 


14 


18 


3 


4 


1 


4 


Dredge Sand (Pier 92)^ 


/■/ION 

(42) 


e 


(10) 


e 




e 


Pleasanton (inbound aggregate) 


144 


e 




e 


8 


e 


Richmond (inbound asphalt) 


Q 

o 


e 


L 


e 





e 


Redwood City (inbound cement) 


42 


e 


r\ 

y 


e 


2 


e 


Subtotal: Aggregate Production 


1,087 


120 


212 


'28 


54 


28 


1_ T TO A /T** r\^\ 

Coach USA (Pier 96) 


410 


228 


157 


53 


157 


53 


Waste Management (Pier 70) 


350 


18 


27 


4 


27 


4 


^iihtnt'fil' TnHiicfi*v l^rniin 


1,847 


366 


396 


85 


238 


85 


Ind. Group: All Vehicle Trips 






'lol 








Port Activity (near term) 














Cargo Shipping (Pier 96) 


lie 
1 Ij 






1 


6 


7 


Gen. Industry (Western Pacific) 


64 


12 


14 


3 


3 


3 


Subtotal: 2001 Port Activity 


179 


32 


39 


10 


9 


10 


Near Term Port Vehicle Trips 


211 




49 






19 


GRAND TOTAT - Nfpar Tprm 


2,026 


398 


435 


95 


247 


95 


ALL VEHICLE TRIPS 


2,424 




530 






342 


Port Activity (2003)^ 














Cargo Shipping (Pier 80) 


64 


12 


8 


6 


4 


5 


Other Activity (Pier 96) 


1,220 


374 


87 


26 


51 


50 


Subtotal: 2003 Port Activity 


1,284 


386 


95 


32 


55 


55 


2003 Port Vehicle Trips 


1,670 




127 






110 


GRAND TOTAL - 2003 


3,310 


784 


530 


127 


302 


150 


ALL VEHICLE TRIPS 


4,094 




657 






452 



^ Numbers shown are one-way trips (one round trip equals two one-way trips). Truck trips are shown by origin. 

Therefore, some trips originate outside the study area (for example, inbound raw materials). Employee vehicle 

trips are shown by location of employment (destination). 
^ Includes buses for Coach USA. 

^ For air quality analysis only, additional internal truck trips assumed from Pier 94 to RMC Pacific at Pier 80. 
^ Dredge sand trips include elimination of 84 existing daily trips between Pier 92 and the Bode and RMC ready- 
mix concrete plants. 

^ These truck trips do not result in employee trips to and from the project area. 
^ Additional to Near Term 

SOURCE: Wilbur Smith Associates; Environmental Science Associates. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



50 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

B. TRANSPORTATION - IMPACTS 



TABLE 3 

PHASE II PROJECT VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION (2015) 





Daily Vehicle Trips 


A.M. Peak Hour Trips 


P.M. Peak Hour Trips 


Trip Origin or Destination^ 


Trucks'' 


Employees 


Trucks'' 


Employees 


Trucks'' 


Employees 


Industry Group 














Bode Gravel (Pier 92) 




30 


85 


7 


23 


7 


RMC Pacific (Pier 80) 


453 


34 


85 


8 


23 


8 


Mission Valley kock (rier yz) 


401 


20 


80 


5 


20 


5 


ISG Resources (Pier 92) 


36 


18 


8 


4 


2 


4 


British Pacific (Pier 94)'^ 





18 





4 





4 


Dredge Sand (Pier 92)^^ 


(42) 


e 


(10) 


e 


(2) 


e 


Pleasanton (inbound aggregate) 


81 


e 


18 


e 


4 


e 


Richmond (inbound asphalt) 


11 


e 


2 


e 


1 


e 


Redwood City (inbound cement) 


55 


e 


12 


e 


3 


e 


Subtotal: Aggregate P*roduction 


1,448 


120 


280 


28 


74 


28 


Coach USA (Pier 96) 


410 


228 


157 


53 


157 


53 


Waste Management (Pier 70) 


350 


18 


LI 


4 


Zl 


4 


Subtotal: Industry Group 


2,208 


366 


464 


85 


258 


85 


Ind. Group: All Vehicle Trips 


2,574 




549 




343 


Port Activity (2015) 














Cargo Shipping (Pier 80) 


224 


26 


28 


12 


14 


10 


Cargo Shipping (Pier 96) 


435 


38 


65 


18 


26 


12 


Gen. Industry (Western Pacific) 


128 


12 


28 


3 


6 


3 


Other Activity (Pier 96) 


1,220 


374 


87 


26 


51 


50 


Subtotal: 2015 Port Activity 


2,007 


450 


208 


59 


97 


75 



2015 Port: AU Vehicle Trips 2,457 267 172 
Future Port Development^ 

Pier 70 Maritime Reserve 1,692 203 120 

Pier 70 Mixed Use 0pp. Area 7,130 537 781 

Pier 90-94 Backlands 5,220 1,051 807 

Subtotal: Port Development 14,042 1,791 1,708 

GRAND TOTAL - 2015S 4,215 14,858 672 1,935 355 1.868 

ALL VEHICLE TRIPS 19,073 2,607 2^23 



Numbers shown are one-way trips (one round trip equals two one-way trips). Truck trips are shown by ongin. 
Therefore, some trips originate outside the study area (for example, inbound raw materials). Employee vehicle 
trips are shown by location of employment (destination). 
Includes buses for Coach USA. 

For air quality analysis only, additional internal truck trips assumed from Pier 94 to RMC Pacific at Pier 80. 
Dredge sand trips include elimination of 84 existing daily trips between Pier 92 and the Bode and RMC ready- 
mix concrete plants. 

These truck trips do not result in employee trips to and from the project area. 
^ Truck traffic not separately calculated for these more "'typical" urban land uses; trip generation column mcludes 

employee and visitor (non-employee) trips. 
S 2005 employee trips include visitor trips for future port development. 

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates; Environmental Science Associates. 



e 



Case No. 1999.377E 



51 

ESA 990267 



Soutlwni Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



B. TRANSPORTATION - IMPACTS 



Southern Waterfront, with the focus on major routes to and from Port lands, including Third Street, 
Cesar Chavez (Army) Street, Illinois Street, and Mariposa Street. In addition, several intersections were 
examined at the gateway to much of the Industry Group activity, in the vicinity of Third Street and Cargo 
Way. The results of the traffic analysis are presented in Table 4 and are portrayed graphically in 
Figure 5, p. 55. As indicated in the table and figure, traffic generated in the near term, mostly by the 
Industry Group components, would adversely affect two intersections: morning (a.m.) peak-hour 
operations at the signalized intersection of Third Street and Cargo Way would deteriorate from Level 
of Service (LOS) B under existing conditions to LOS F, and at the signalized intersection of 25th and 
Third Streets, afternoon (p.m.) peak-hour conditions would deteriorate, also to LOS F from an existing 
LOS B. These changes would occur in the near term, by about 2001. By 2003, with all Phase I project 
traffic, including an additional increment of Port development, as well as traffic from other background 
growth in the vicinity, p.m. peak-hour conditions at Third and Cargo would also deteriorate to LOS F 
without the Illinois Street Bridge, from LOS C at present and LOS D with Existing-plus-Industry Group 
(near term) conditions. Also by 2003, a third intersection would be adversely affected: the unsignalized 
intersection of Amador Street and Cargo Way would deteriorate to LOS F in the p.m. peak hour with 
Phase I traffic and completion of the Illinois Street bridge. 

The worsening in a.m. peak-hour LOS at Third and Cargo would be caused by the heavy volume ot 
Industry Group traffic from Cargo Way onto northbound Third Street. Without the Illinois Street bridge, 
this condition would worsen in 2003 as the volume of traffic on Cargo Way increases. However, with 
completion of the Illinois Street bridge, a.m. peak-hour operations at Third and Cargo would be at 
LOS C, which is acceptable, and would continue at LOS C even with additional future Port development 
by 2015, including at the Pier 90-94 backlands. In the p.m. peak-hour, the deterioration in LOS would be 
due primarily to southbound traffic turning left from Third Street onto Cargo Way. As with a.m. 
conditions, p.m. peak-hour operations would improve with completion of the Illinois Street bridge, to 
LOS D, which is acceptable. Therefore, the Industry Group components would have an interim (short- 
term) significant effect at the intersection of Third Street and Cargo Way, which would be avoided by 
implementation of the Illinois Street bridge, which is also part of Phase I of the project. 

At 25th and Third, the deterioration in LOS would be a consequence of the increased volume of 
southbound through traffic, which would result in inadequate time for northbound left-turning vehicles to 
make that movement and consequently long delays for those left-turning vehicles. Other movements at 
this intersection would operate with acceptable delays, but the number of existing left-turning vehicles is 
such that, with additional delay caused by heavier southbound volume, the overall average delay for all 
vehicles at this intersection would be unacceptable. Two points should be noted concerning the 
intersection of 25th and Third Streets: first, the unacceptable LOS F operations would be a short-term 
phenomenon, because the traffic signal at this intersection is scheduled to receive a separate left-turn 
phase in 2003 as part of the Third Street Light Rail Project. Secondly, delays for left-turning vehicles 
might result in a self-correcting impact, in that motorists might select alternate routes with less delay. 
However, it would be speculative to conclude that the intersection would operate acceptably prior to 



Case No. 1999.377E 



52 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



C/3 

H 
U 
< 



z 



05 

H 

P 
C/3 

Pi 

u 
> 

u 



^ ^ 

eu — 

S £ q 

r<i ^ nJ 



■35 « 
12 ® 

o Z 



C/2 
O 



>1 

^ S Q 



22 c« 
<s ^ J 



a 

o 

G 



OX) 

PQ 
s 

.ts O 



+ 23 



O 



"3 

9 .s 

O -w 

o .2 

O 



S 

O 

n 
Dm 









o\ 


1^ 




VO 




OS 


A 


A 




IT) 


b 




PQ 





o 

A 



lo CO \o 
IT) r-^ 06 
CM CO csi 



m CO 



Q Q U Q 



U U 

oQ pa 













A 


A 







10 00 (N 00 



m m ^ (N ^ 



p 



<N so 



A CN 



fe ^ 



O 

^ — ; 

A CN 



fa 



so 



© CO ^ so 

^ :s o 2 



so 00 so m r~ in 



so 



i3 



++ 
6 



05 o 

s? 

i ^ 

■-I / ' 

C ^ 

o o 

CP g 

o o 

00 00 

CN CN 



1) 

u 

a- ^ 
o § 



u 

00 



CN r~- 



CO CN 



OfitNt^^r-Psot^t-r-^-: 

^-H^;s0f^0s-^O_^^(N0s 
CN^^-H^^^^CNCM 



Q<U<i:Q<<UQ 



CNSOCN00CN-^JI~;^ 



< 



^ .soooco'*Tfcnoco^"r 



CN 



CN 



CN 

CO 



CO 
CN 



so 



U 



CN 00 
fS-l —I 



oc 

d 



CQ 



(N 
CJs 



u 

CQ 



OS 

d 



CQ 
< 



00 
d 



CQ 
< 



i2 X-) 



•c j= 

^ -5 o 

i< O CN 

^ CN ^ 

(/3 ^ t/l 

■5 -o 'o 



i5 (U 



s (u a 



c ^ 

O N 

PQ > 

c/3 "rt 

O 
00 
CN 



0) 

c/3 
N 

u 
> 

u 



CO 00 



c/5 j:: 
•£ 

m CN 
CN 

t/i 

c 

4:: 



U 



u 



•5* u 

<»> 00 



ii 

<= s 

« > 
Cu U 



c ' 
c 

a. 



•X3 



■3 ~I 

ii 



CO 
~^ CO 



U Q 



. o 



CN 
CN 



u 



CQ 
< 



so IT) 

CN 



U 



I 



2 o 



CJs 



U 



o 
d 



U 



CO 



CQ < 



U 



CN 

•Si 



^ ^ ^ J3 >^ 



® o 
00 



>n 

Ci 
++ ^ 

>, -Si 



■<3 « 

Q hi 



o 

u. O t/i 

« — c 

U ^ « 

H ^ 



00 



•Sf 00 



-o 
c 
o 



o 

so 

-o 

c 

>. 
-a 



o 

so 
A 



■D 
C 

o 
u 

<u 

o 

so 



c 

o 

u 



§ .2 



o "= 



o " 
o ■ - 



£ - 



s b i 5 



x: X) 
c E 



00 " 
O 3 
-J 3 



■ 2 •£ 
u c 

z * 
2 - 

-o .ii 

— >> U 

t) m > 
O 



U v: 

I! 

O UJ 



00 
O 



Is 

u 



1^ 

2 = 
c 
c 



o. 

> 
u 



O 

c 
o 

■3 
2 
CO c 
O ^ 



CO _J 



II C U 

S i ^ 

. o 00 
H O 
j6 _3 



™ d y V 

■7; Q Q. C 



C 

o 

o 5 J3 
J* -a OO 

||2 

W I'l > 



c 

c - 

.2 ^ 

o 

o ^ 
. c w 

^ 'C 

■ o 
-o — 



•c c 

C3 t 
^ jC 

ii 

u 

00 > 
O 2 
_] c 
o E 

00 

&-2 

u 

E I 

u ()! 

" > 
? "T E 



> 



o 

> 
z 



H 

P 

g w 

b 
O 



OS 



o 03 Q 

CU I- 

S £ q 

<S ^ J 



IS O 



Q 



o 



l-l 

^ -O Q 

2 .ti en 
o 



O 



O ~ 
_j 'C Q 



a 

s a 

+ 2 I 



iZ5 



o 



§1 

^ M c« 
O 



3 

O 

113 





1— ( 


CTs 




»n (N O 




r4 




so 


— ; r-^ 




■<» 




in 


CN f<-) — ( 






u 




Q Q U 




o o 
oo oo 

22^ 











Third/Mariposa 










B 


B 


D 


D 


C 


E 


B 


D 


D 


D 


C 


E 




1-280 SB on ramp/Mariposa 


F- 


F- 


F- 


F* 


D 


F 


F" 


F- 


F- 


F- 


D 


E 



Minnesota/Mariposa 


A(B)- 


A(C)- 


A 


A 


B 


8 


A(C)- 


A(C)' 


A 


A 


C 


C 



lllinois/20th 


A 


A 


A 


A 


B 


C 


A 


A 


A 


A 


A 


C 



Pennsylvania/1-280 SB on-ram 


p' 


A 


A 


A 


A 


A(B) 


B(C) 


A 


A 


A 


A 


A(B) 


E(R 



Third/25th 


B 


B 


B 


B 


8 


D 


B 


F 


C 


c 


D 


F 



lllinois/25th' 


A 


A 


A 


A 


A 


B(C) 


A 


A 


A 


B 


A 


F 



Third/Cesar Chavez 


C 


C 


D 


C 


D 


F 


C 


D 


D 


D 


E 


F 



Illinois/Cesar Chavez* 


A 


A(B) 


A(B) 


B(C) 


A(B) 


F 


A(B) 


A(8) 


A(B) 


B(C) 


A(B) 


F 



Third/Cargo 


8 


F 


F 


C 


C 


C 


C 


D 


F 


D 


B 


B 



Amador/Cargo" 


A 


A(B) 


A 


B(F) 


A(B) 


F 


A 


A 


8 


F 


A(B) 


F 



LEGEND 



1-280 NB off ramp/Manposa 


C 


C 


C 


C 


D 


F 


D 






D 


D 


E 



San 
Francisco 
Bay 



Illinois/Mariposa 


A 


A 


A 


A 


C 


D 


A 


A 


A 


A 


B 


D 



InlorsecDor f^mc 




























Signalized Intersection 
O Unsignalized Intersection 

Unsignalized Intersection Approved lor Signal 
(see text) 

'LOS reported (or overall mlersection. 
LOS in parentheses a tor critical movement at untignaUed 

inlorsoction (normally, rranor m eet let lumi 



SOURCE: Wilbur Smith Associates 



l999.Sr7E: Soulhrm Wmrrfmnl SEIRtESA W.Vt^i ■ 

Figure 5 

Intersection Levels of Service 



55 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



B. TRANSPORTATION - IMPACTS 



creation of new signal phasing; further, such changes in travel patterns could have their own - albeit 
speculative - impacts elsewhere. Therefore, Phase I of the project would have an interim (short-term) 
significant effect at the intersection of 25th and Third Streets, which would be eliminated by 
implementation of the already-approved change in signal timing as part of the Third Street Light Rail 
project. 

At Amador Street and Cargo Way, completion of the Illinois Street bridge would result in a change in 
traffic patterns such that the volume of traffic turning left from Amador Street to Cargo Way would 
increase substantially, compared to existing conditions and conditions with Industry Group traffic but 
without the bridge, in the near term and in 2003. In the p.m. peak hour, this change in traffic flow would 
result in lengthy delays that would result in the intersection operating at LOS F. (In the a.m. peak hour, 
delays would also be long for Amador Street left tiuns, but the volume of traffic making this movement 
would be less than in the afternoon, and overall intersection operations would remain at LOS B.) By 
2015, the addition of Phase I and Phase II project traffic, along with the Illinois Street bridge, would 
result in unacceptable LOS F conditions at this intersection in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This 
would be a significant effect. However, the impact could be mitigated through installation of a traffic 
signal and restriping (see Chapter IV, Mitigation Measures, p. 144). 

At the unsignalized intersection of Mariposa Street and the Interstate 280 southbound on-ramp. 

Phase I of the project would result in increased delays during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This 
intersection currently operates at LOS F diuing both peak hours, and Phase I project traffic would 
increase delays. This condition would continue to worsen by 2003, when additional traffic from the 
approved Mission Bay project would further increase delays. By 2015, this intersection is scheduled to 
be signalized, and the signalized intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS under 2015 No-Project 
conditions (i.e., without the Industry Group project components or future Port development). 
However, the addition of Phase I and Phase II project traffic by 2015 would result in imacceptable 
conditions at this intersection, even signalized: LOS F in the a.m. peak hour and LOS E in the p.m. 
peak-hour. This would be a significant effect, and would not be mitigable, as the intersection capacity 
would be exceeded. 

The other 13 study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) in all 
scenarios prior to 2015. 

The Illinois Street bridge would allow for removal of railroad tracks that currently run through the 
Mission Bay project area and would represent a benefit to traffic patterns in the Mission Bay area: the 
approved Mission Bay plan currently calls for the tracks that connect the Union Pacific main line to 
those on Illinois Street to be replaced with tracks in the 16th Street right-of-way. With completion of the 



Mitigation for intersection levels of service identified in the Mission Bay Subsequent EIR (Case No. 96.771E; Final SEIR 
certified September 17, 1998) is keyed to generation of specific volumes of traffic, and thus, based on development 
assumptions, is assumed to be in place by 2015 at the Mariposa Street / 1-280 southbound on-ramp intersection, although it 
could occur earlier. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



56 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

B. TRANSPORTATION - IMPACTS 

Illinois Street bridge, there would be no need for tracks in 16th Street, thereby eliminating a potential 
conflict between trains and vehicle traffic. 

By 2015, all intersections except Third and Cesar Chavez Streets would operate at acceptable levels of 
service under No Project conditions, accounting for background growth including traffic from the 
Hunters Point Shipyard redevelopment project, the Mission Bay project, and the Bayview-Hunters Point 
redevelopment area. The poor p.m. peak-hour LOS at Third / Cesar Chavez Streets (LOS E in the 2015 
Baseline) would result fi-om changes in lane configuration due to the Third Street Light Rail Project and 
increased background (non-project) traffic. This impact was identified in the EIR/EIS for the Third 
Street Light Rail Project (FTA and San Francisco Planning Department, 1998). Project traffic would 
degrade this LOS to LOS F in the p.m. peak hour, and the project would result in a considerable 
contribution to a cumulative significant impact. 

The additional traffic from future Port development (Phase II of the project), along with Phase I traffic, 
would result in unacceptable conditions (LOS E or LOS F) at eight of 17 study intersections in the a.m. 
peak hour and at 10 of 17 study intersections in the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, the project would result 
in a significant effect at each of these intersections (see Table 4, which compares conditions in 2015 with 
and without project traffic). Mitigation has been identified to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant 
level at Third / 25th Streets; Illinois / 25th Streets; Pennsylvania Street / 1-280 southbound on-ramp; 
Permsylvania / Cesar Chavez Streets; Third / Cesar Chavez Streets; and Illinois Cesar Chavez Streets, as 
well as at Amador Street / Cargo Way, as described above (see Chapter IV, Mitigation Measures, 
p. 144). Impacts at four intersections would not be mitigable. These include Mariposa Street / 1-280 
southbound on-ramp, described above; Mariposa Street / 1-280 northbound off-ramp; Third / Mariposa 
Streets; and Evans Avenue / Cesar Chavez Street. 

Of the four SEIR analysis intersections that were also studied in the Waterfront Plan EIR (Third / 
Mariposa Streets, Third / 25th Streets, Third /Cesar Chavez Streets, and Third Street / Evans Avenue), 
levels of service at all but Third / Evans would be worse in the p.m. peak hour in 2015 (a.m. peak hour 
was not analyzed), based on the present analysis, than was projected for 2010 in the Waterfront Plan 
EIR. Third / Mariposa and Third / 25th Streets were both projected to operate at LOS B in 2010. while 
Third / Cesar Chavez was projected to operate at LOS D in 2010. Compared to the 2015 levels of 
service projected in the Third Street Light Rail EIR/EIS, the LOS identified in the present analysis would 
be worse at Third / Mariposa in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours (LOS E vs. LOS D, a.m.; and LOS E 
vs. LOS C, p.m.), while at Third / Cesar Chavez, the current analysis shows a deterioration in the a.m. 
(LOS F vs. LOS D), but the same level of service (LOS F) in the p.m. (These are the only two 
intersections shared by this SEIR and the Third Street Light Rail EIR/EIS.) 

Transit 

As noted in the discussion of Travel Demand, above, approximately 9 percent of employee trips to work 
for Phase I of the project (primarily the Industry Group components) are anticipated to be made using 
transit, which is half the percentage typically assumed for southeastern San Francisco. This is because 



Case No. 1999.377E 



57 

ESA 990267 



Southcni Waicrfroni SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

B. TRANSPORTATION - IMPACTS 

transit access to the Industry Group sites is currently limited, and many workers would be expected to 
begin and end their work days prior to more typical work hours. Furthermore, the number of peak-hour 
trips would be less for Phase I than for typical land uses, because many of the Industry Group employees 
in construction- and aggregate-related industries normally begin work by about 7:00 a.m. and finish work 
by about 3:30 p.m. As a result, Phase I would generate fewer than 25 transit trips in the a.m. and p.m. 
peak hours. These new transit riders would represent a very small increase over existing ridership in the 
area, and would not result in a significant effect. 

Phase n of the project includes additional growth in cargo shipping and related activities at Pier 70 (the 
maritime reserve area). Pier 80, and Piers 94-96, as well as development of non-maritime and non- 
industrial uses at the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity Area and the Piers 90-94 backlands. The Mixed- 
Use Opportunity Area and the backlands together would include 1.6 million square feet of office and/or 
research and development space and 100,000 square feet of retail space, which would have trip 
generation characteristics such that transit use among commuters and visitors would likely be greater 
than that assumed for the maritime and industrial uses elsewhere in the project area. Table 5 presents 
estimated transit ridership for Phase II of the project. Of the estimated approximately 680 a.m. peak- 
hour and 625 p.m. peak-hour transit trips, about 80 percent would be made in the peak direction (to the 
work place in the morning and from the work place in the afternoon). 

The increase in transit ridership by 2015, along with growth in ridership due to other development in the 
project area and elsewhere, could be accommodated by Muni routes serving the project area. On the 
Third Street Light Rail line, the percent of p.m. peak-hour, peak-direction transit vehicle capacity used 
("capacity utilization") would be 83 percent in the p.m. peak hour. The project would add about 450 new- 
riders, and increasing capacity utilization from 45 percent (with cumulative growth but without the 
project) to 83 percent with the project. Because adequate capacity would remain, the effect would not be 
significant. Peak-direction capacity utilization on the three principal bus lines that serve the project area 
(19-Polk, 22-Fillmore, and 48-24th Street/Quintara Avenue) would be between 90 percent and 
100 percent. Only the 22-Fillmore would operate at capacity; however, project ridership would amount 
to only 6 trips, and would not result in a significant effect. Project ridership on the other lines would be 
40 trips or less; adequate capacity would remain on all lines and the project impact would not be 
significant. 

Project ridership by 2015 on regional transit carriers would total about 95 p.m. peak-hour trips to the East 
Bay (85 on BART, 10 on AC Transit); about 80 p.m. peak-hour trips to the Peninsula and South Bay (50 
on Caltrain, 30 on BART); and about 15 p.m. peak-hour trips to the North Bay on Golden Gate buses and 
ferries. Both BART (to the East Bay) and AC Transit would operate in excess of capacity, although 
BART trains would remain within the system's standard of 115 percent for the three-hour peak period. 
Project-generated ridership would increase BART capacity utilization by less than 0.5 percent, and AC 
Transit capacity utilization by less than 0.3 percent, and therefore would not result in a significant 
impact, because the contribution to cumulative overcrowding would be negligible. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



58 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVreONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

B. TRANSPORTATION - IMPACTS 



TABLE 5 

PHASE II PROJECT TRANSIT TRIP GENERATION (2015) 



Transit Trips 







9i7e 




AM Pk Hr 


PM Pk 


Pier 70 Mixed Use 


Office / R&D 


610,000 sq. ft. 


1,010 


148 


155 


Opportunity Area 


Retail/Commercial 


100,000 sq. ft. 


1,467 


47 


122 


Pier 70 Maritime 


Maritime Industry 


200,000 sq. ft. 


405 


49 


13 


Reserve 














General Industry 


200,000 sq. ft. 


312 


37 


38 


Pier 90-94 Backlands 


Light Industry 


650,000 sq. ft. 


1,311 


158 


42 




Office / R&D 


1 million sq. ft. 


1,754 


242 


256 


Total 






6^59 


681 


626 



SOURCE: Wilbur Smith Associates 



Increased traffic congestion on Third Street and at local intersections would be expected to result in some 
increased delay for transit vehicles traveling in the study area. However, because light rail vehicles 
would travel in a dedicated right-of-way, delays on Third Street would be limited to those locations 
where left-turning cars could interfere with light rail vehicles. Additional conflicts could occur in 
connection with use of the Muni light rail loop track at Third/1 8th/Illinois Streets. However, use of this 
loop is not anticipated until substantial buildout has occurred at the Mission Bay project area, when 
demand for additional light rail service between Mission Bay and downtown will likely be required. 

Parking and Loading 

For the Industry Group project components in Phase I of the project, the parking demand would be 
limited almost entirely to employee vehicles. Each of the Industry Group sponsors has indicated plans to 
provide for on-site employee parking. Because the Industry Group components would include large flat 
areas, no lack of parking supply is anticipated, even though, as noted above under Travel Demand, this 
analysis assumes that a greater share of employees would drive than is typically assumed in this part of 
San Francisco, because of the current relative lack of transit service in the area and the early start time 
for many construction industry-related land uses. The Planning Code parking requirement is normally 
calculated on the basis of occupied floor area within building(s) on a site. Because most of the Industr>' 
Group uses would involve primarily open yards and equipment, the requirement would be minimal if 
calculated in this manner. A similar situation would arise with respect to open areas used for cargo 
shipping (Piers 80 and 94-96) and outdoor industrial uses (potentially the Western Pacific site under 
future port development). The Phase I components would be mostly related to handling of construction 
materials, and these facilities therefore would be established to accommodate the loading and unloading 



Case No. 1999.377E 



59 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



B. TRANSPORTATION - IMPACTS 



of these materials. However, there would not be expected to be much in the way of more typical loading 
activity that is associated with commercial buildings. 

Future Port development in Phase II of the project would involve development of more conventional land 
uses, compared to the Phase I components. In particular, the development of more than 1.6 million 
square feet of office and research and development space at the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity Area and 
the Pier 90-94 backlands would result in an estimated demand for nearly 3,300 parking spaces, or about 
two-thirds of the parking demand for Phase II of the project. Estimated parking demand and Planning 
Code parking requirements are presented in Table 6. Actual parking demand and requirements could 
vary by use and by site, depending on the actual uses that are proposed in the future on Port property. It 
is assumed that the relative lack of site constraints (i.e., the availability of large development sites) 
would facilitate the provision of both adequate parking and off-street loading space for individual 
projects, meaning that no significant effects would be expected. It is also assumed that large projects 
that may be proposed would be subject to detailed transportation analyses. 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Conditions 

Phase I project components (primarily those of the Industry Group) would generate little in the way of 
pedestrian or bicycle traffic (see discussion imder Travel Demand, above), so the potential effects of the 
project would be largely those of increased truck traffic on existing pedestrians and bicycles. Neither 
pedestrian nor bicycle traffic is noticeable in the immediate vicinity of most of the Industry Group 
projects (i.e., along Amador Street, 20th Street, Cesar Chavez Street, and other streets east of Illinois 
Street). Thus impacts would be limited in the immediate area. Pedestrian traffic elsewhere in the greater 
project area (e.g., on Third Street, Illinois Street,^^ and most east-west streets west of Illinois Street) 
travels on sidewalks that separate pedestrian traffic from trucks and other vehicles, and these sidewalks 
would remain in the future, meaning that impacts would be minimal because pedestrians would continue 
to have separate rights-of-way. Furthermore, the heaviest concentrations of added truck traffic would be 
in areas with little pedestrian activity. It should also be noted that much of the project area east of 
Illinois Street is, and will continue to be, a heavy industrial area. Indeed, most of the proposed Industry 
Group components, including concrete ready-mix plants, aggregate materials import and storage, and, 
potentially, asphalt batch plant(s), are not pedestrian-friendly, in the sense that the movement of heavy 
materials, high volumes of truck traffic, and noise and dust in the immediate area are not conducive to 
leisure walking. Therefore, the provision of pedestrian access for casual walkers is not necessarily the 
public benefit it would be in areas of the waterfront north of Pier 70. 

The project would not adversely affect pedestrian access to the Bay Trail, which is designated on Illinois 
Street north of 24th Street and on Third Street south of 24th Street. Existing sidewalks on these streets 
would remain in place and would continue to function as part of the Bay Trail. 



Some parts of Illinois Street that are currently unimproved will receive sidewalks in the future, independent of the project, 
including between 25th and C6sar Chivez Streets, where the street would be paved and sidewalks as part of the construction 
of the Third Street light rail service yard at the Western Pacific site. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



60 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

B. TRANSPORTATION - LMPACTS 



TABLE 6 

PHASE II PARKING DEMAND AND REQUIREMENT (2015) 









Parking Demand 


Parking 


Location 


Uses 


Size 


Empl. 


Visitor 


Total 


Req't^ 


"Pi AT* 7(i \Afv^f^ TTcA 

i ICl f\J IVllACu UoC 




fi 1 n nno ?n ft 


1,127 


112 


1,239 


1 098 


Opportunity Area 


Retail/Conunercial 


100,000 sq. ft. 


155 


307 


462 


320 


Pier 70 Maritime 


Maritime Industry 


200,000 sq. ft. 


191 


27 


218 


120 


Reserve 


General Industry 


200,000 sq. ft. 


191 


21 


212 


120 


Pier 90-94 Backlands 


Light Industry 


650,000 sq. ft. 


622 


88 


710 


390 




Office /R&D 


1 million sq. ft. 


1,848 


183 


2,031 


1,800 


Total 






4,134 


738 


4,872 


3,848 



^ Estimated Planning Code parking requirement. 
SOURCE: Wilbur Smith Associates 



Existing bicycle traffic travels in shared lanes with automobile and truck traffic, and increased traffic 
volumes, particularly on Third Street, could create more potential for conflict between motor vehicles 
and bicycles. This would be particularly true in 2003 and thereafter, when Third Street will be reduced 
from three to two travel lanes in each direction due to operation of the Muni Third Street light rail line. 
Although the San Francisco Bicycle Plan recommends striping of bicycle lanes on Third Street, the loss 
of one traffic lane in each direction to provide for light rail tracks has precluded the creation of these 
bicycle lanes (FT A and San Francisco Planning Department, 1998, p. 3-69). Alternative routes are 
available in portions of the study area, including Indiana Street (Route 7, north of Cesar Chavez Street), 
Keith-Palou-Phelps Streets and Evans Avenue (Routes 7 and 68, south of Cesar Chavez Street), and 
Cesar Chavez Street (Route 60), which has an existing bicycle lane linking Evans Avenue and Indiana 
Street. The Department of Parking and Traffic is also considering a bicycle route on Illinois Street. 
Although traffic volumes would increase with the project, and there would a potential for increased 
conflict between bicycles and motor vehicles, as occurs elsewhere in San Francisco, the impact would 
not be considered significant because bicycle traffic could be accommodated on the variety of bicycle 
routes that are available through the project area. 

The Illinois Street bridge would provide an alternative route to Third Street for bicyclists, connecting 
Illinois Street and Cargo Way, portions of which are each part of the Bay Trail route. 

By 2015, with implementation of Phase II of the project (futiu-e Port development, including increased 
cargo shipping), traffic volumes would increase further, and pedestrian and bicycle use in the project 
area would also be anticipated to increase, particularly if mixed-use development occurs as planned at 
Pier 70 and at the Pier 90-94 backlands. Development of these mixed-use projects would be reviewed by 
the Port to ensure that adequate pedestrian access is provided, potentially including construction of 



Case No. 1999.377E 



61 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



B. TRANSPORTATION - IMPACTS 



sidewalks where none exist on the perimeter of the development sites, and would also be required to 
include bicycle parking in accordance with the requirements in the Planning Code. Thus, pedestrian and 
bicycle conditions would be improved from conditions at present. 

Construction Impacts 

Several of the Industry Group project components would likely be under construction at the same time, 
beginning in early 2001. However, as interim facilities without permanent structures, mostly developed 
on already paved land, these components would not generate substantial or lengthy construction impacts. 
Effects on local traffic would be considerably less extensive than those described for the Phase I project 
itself, because the volume of construction-related traffic would be much less than the traffic volumes 
once all Industry Group components were operational. Further, to the extent that construction were to 
result in any traffic disruption, the effects would be largely limited to other project components or to 
operations at the Port's existing Pier 80 cargo terminal. Because most of the Phase I components would 
be developed within six months and because the effects would be mostly limited to the project area, no 
significant effects are anticipated. 

Development of the Phase II project components, including future Port development of the Pier 70 
Mixed-Use Opportunity Area and the Piers 90-94 Backlands, could result in temporary construction- 
period impacts much like those of typical urban development, but would not be considered significant. 
Effects could be limited by coordination between developers and construction contractors of projects that 
might be under development simultaneously; by avoiding off-site materials storage; and by limiting 
construction truck traffic, to the extent feasible, to between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., or other hours as 
approved by the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT). In addition, any lane closures for 
construction would require approval by DPT, which could limit such closures to non-peak hours. 
Because neither the Pier 70 nor Piers 90-94 areas are developed to a great extent and each includes large 
areas of open space, lane closures and sidewalk closures would probably not be required, and 
construction impacts would be largely limited to any effects that may be caused by truck traffic. 
Construction worker parking could also be accommodated on site. Therefore, construction impacts 
would be temporary and would not be significant. 



REFERENCES - Transportation 

FTA (Federal Transportation Administration) and San Francisco Planning Department, Third Street 
Light Rail Project Final Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report, 
November 1998 (Case No. 96.281E; SCH #96102097). 



Case No. 1999.377E 62 Southern Waterfront SEIR 

ESA 990267 



m. ENVreONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

C. AIR QUALITY - SETTING 



C. AIR QUALITY 

The subject of air quality relates to ambient concentrations of pollutants in the atmosphere. This section 
translates the expected changes within the Southern Waterfront area (described in the project description) 
into the language of air quality assessment, namely "emissions" and "concentrations." "Emissions" 
estimates relay information in terms of quantities of a given pollutant per unit of time. Typically, 
emissions are reported in units of grams per second, pounds per day or tons per year. "Concentration" 
estimates relay information in terms of quantities of a given pollutant in a given volume of air. 
Typically, concentrations are reported in parts per million (by volume) or micrograms per cubic meter. 
Emissions estimates themselves cannot be directly compared to ambient air quality standards but rather 
provide only a rough indication of the relative contribution of a source to ambient concentrations. 
Concentration estimates, on the other hand, can be directly compared to ambient air quality standards. 
Ambient air quality standards represent concentrations of air pollutants below which public health and 
welfare are protected. The Waterfront Plan FEIR addressed "air quality" as one of the environmental 
conditions affected by development on Port lands, including the Southern Waterfront subarea. The 
following section updates this information and expands upon the analysis presented in the prior EIR with 
respect to the Southern Waterfront subarea. 

SETTING 
INTRODUCTION 

Air quality is a function of both the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of 
meteorological conditions, and of topographic features. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, 
wind direction, and air temperature gradients interact with the physical features of the landscape to 
determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants, and consequently affect air quality. This section 
addresses issues related to the two principal categories of air pollutants: "criteria air pollutants" and 
"toxic air contaminants." The term, "criteria air pollutants," refers to those pollutants that are pervasive 
in urban environments and for which state and national health-based ambient air quality standards have 
been established. The term, "toxic air contaminants," refers to those pollutants that are associated with 
carcinogenic and other adverse health effects, but occur at relatively lower concentrations than do criteria 
pollutants and have no established ambient air quality standards that are comparable to those used for 
criteria pollutants. Instead, emissions are evaluated to determine the degree to which they may increase 
health risks; there are state standards established for some air toxics, called Reference Exposure Levels 
(RELs), which are defined as concentrations at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated 
for a specified exposure period to a specific pollutant. This setting section provides an overview of the 
regulatory context followed by region-specific information related to climate and topography; plans, 
policies, and regulations; and existing air quality conditions. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



63 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVreONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - SETTING 



CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY 

The project area lies within the City and County of San Francisco, which lies at the northern end of the 
peninsula climatological subregion of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Bay Area). The peninsula 
climatological subregion extends from northwest of San Jose to the Golden Gate. The Santa Cruz 
Mountains extend through the center of the peninsula, with elevations exceeding 2,000 feet at the 
southern end, decreasing to 500 feet in South San Francisco. Because most of San Francisco's 
topography is below 200 feet, marine air is able to flow easily across most of the City, making its climate 
cool and windy. Pollutant emissions in San Francisco are high, especially from motor vehicle 
congestion. Localized pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, can build up in "urban canyons"; however, 
winds in San Francisco are generally strong enough to carry the pollutants away from the City before 
they can accumulate (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1999). 

Within San Francisco, winds are generally from the west, although wind patterns are often influenced 
greatly by local topographic features. In the project area, winds generally blow out of the west- 
southwest, west, and west-northwest (Environmental Science Associates, 1998). Figure 6 shows a "wind 
rose" plot for the project area. The data that are represented in Figure 6 were collected at a location 
within the project area between Piers 70 and 72 and are representative of typical wind conditions within 
the greater project vicinity. The wind rose plot is a graphical description of wind measurements taken 
over an entire year. The bars on the figure show winds for 16 wind direction sectors spread around the 
entire 360 degree circle. The lengths of the bars indicate the fraction of time over a year that winds blow 
from that given direction. The various symbols on the bars represent the fraction of time that winds in a 
sector are blowing at the designated speed. The figure shows that winds blowing from the south 
clockwise through northwest account for approximately 67 percent of all observations in the project 
area. Winds from these directions carry pollutants released from the project site out over the Bay and not 
on the land area surrounding the site. Average wind speeds observed at the power plant are 
approximately eight miles per hour. 



REGULATORY CONTEXT 



Criteria Air Pollutants 

Regulation of air pollution is achieved through both national and state ambient air quality standards and 
emissions limits for individual sources of air pollutants. The federal Clean Air Act requires the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to identify National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(national standards) to protect public health and welfare. National standards have been established for 
ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and lead. These pollutants 
are called "criteria" air pollutants because standards have been established for each of them to meet 
specific public health and welfare criteria. California has adopted more stringent ambient air quality 
standards for most of the criteria air pollutants (referred to as State Ambient Air Quality Standards or 
State standards). Table 7 presents both sets of ambient air quality standards (i.e., national and state) and 
provides a brief discussion of the related health effects and principal sources for each pollutant. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



64 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 




Calm Winds .60% 




1-3 4-6 7-10 11-16 17-21 +21 



Wind Speed Class (Knots) 
Plot shows direction winds are blowing from 
I999.377E: S4MilhemWaltrfr(mlSaRtES.^'^':f< I ■ 

Figure 6 

Annual Wind Rose 
Potrero Power Plant ( 1 -92) 



65 



ffl. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - SETTING 



TABLE 7 

STATE AND NATIONAL CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT STANDARDS, EFFECTS, AND SOURCES 



Pollutant 


Averaging 
Time 


State 
Standard 


National 
Standard 


Pollutant Health and 
Atmospheric Effects 


Major Pollutant Sources 


Ozone 


1 hour 
8 hours 


0.09 ppm 


0.12 ppm 
0.08 ppm ^ 


High concentrations can directly 
affect lungs, causing irritation. 
Long-term exposure may cause 
damage to lung tissue. 


Formed when reactive organic 
gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides 
(NO^) react in the presence of 
sunhght. Major sources include 
on-road motor vehicles, solvent 
evaporation, and commercial / 
industrial mobile equipment. 


Carbon 
Monoxide 


1 hour 
8 hours 


20 ppm 
9.0 ppm 


35 ppm 
9 ppm 


Classified as a chemical 
asphyxiant, carbon monoxide 
interferes with the transfer of fresh 
oxygen to the blood and deprives 
sensitive tissues of oxygen. 


Internal combustion engines, 
primarily gasoline-powered motor 
vehicles. 


Nitrogen 
Dioxide 


1 hour 

Annual Avg. 


0.25 ppm 


0.053 ppm 


Irritating to eyes and respiratory 
tract. Colors atmosphere reddish- 
brown. 


Motor vehicles, petroleum 
refining operations, industrial 
sources, aircraft, ships, and 
railroads. 


Sulfur 
Dioxide 


1 hour 
3 hours 
24 hours 
Annual Avg. 


0.25 ppm 
0.04 ppm 


0.5 ppm 
0.14 ppm 
0.03 ppm 


Iiritates upper respiratory tract; 
injurious to lung tissue. Can 
yellow the leaves of plants, 
destructive to marble, iron, and 
steel. Limits visibility and reduces 


Fuel combustion, chemical plants, 
sulfur recovery plants, and metal 
processing. 


Respirable 
Particulate 
Matter 
(PM-10) 


24 hours 
Annual Avg. 


50 iig/ml 
30 ^g/m 


150 pg/m^ 
50 ng/m 


May irritate eyes and respiratory 
tract. Decreases in lung capacity. 
Increased cancer and mortality. 
Produces haze and limits 
visibility. 


Dust and fume-producing 
industrial and agricultural 
operations, combustion, 
atmospheric photochemical 
reactions, and natural activities 
(e.g. wind-raised dust and ocean 
sprays). 


Fine 

Particulate 

Matter 

(PM-2.5) 


24 hours 
Annual Avg. 


— 


65 |ig/m^ 
15 [xg/jxT 


Increases respiratory disease, lung 
damage, cancer, and premature 
death. Reduces visibility and 
results in surface soiling. 


Fuel combustion in motor 
vehicles, equipment, and 
industrial sources. Also, formed 
from photochemical reactions of 
other pollutants, including ROG, 
NO^, and sulfur oxides. 


Lead 


Monthly 
Quarterly 


1.5 ng/m-^ 


1.5 |ig/m^ 


Disturbs gastrointestinal system, 
and causes anemia, kidney 
disease, and neuromuscular and 
neiu^ologic dysfunction. 


Present source: lead smelters, 
battery manufacturing & recycling 
facilities. Past source: combustion 
of leaded gasoline. 



NOTE: ppm = parts per million; |ig/m = micrograms per cubic meter. 

^ On May 14, 1999, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia set aside the new 
national eight-hour ozone and PM-2.5 standards that U.S. EPA had issued in 1997. Essentially, the court left the new 
standards in place but put a hold on implementing the eight-hour ozone standard and asked for further comments on 
the PM-2.5 standard. This decision has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



66 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



ra. ENVIRONMENTAL SETITNG AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - SETTING 



Under amendments to the federal Clean Air Act, U.S. EPA has classified air basins, or portions thereof, 
as either "attainment" or "nonattainment" for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the 
national standards have been achieved. In 1988, the State Legislature passed the California Clean Air 
Act, which is patterned after the federal Clean Air Act to the extent that areas are required to be 
designated as "attainment" or "nonattainment," but for the state standards, rather than the national 
standards. Thus, areas in California have two sets of attainment / nonattainment designations: one set 
with respect to the national standards and one set with respect to the state standards. The Bay Area is 
currently designated "nonattainment" for state and national ozone standards and nonattainment for the 
state PM-10 standard (California Air Resources Board, 1999). The urbanized portion of the Bay Area is 
also designated as a "maintenance" area for the national carbon monoxide standard. The "maintenance" 
designation denotes that the area, now "attainment," had once been designated as "nonattainment." The 
Bay Area is "attainment" or "unclassified" with respect to the other ambient air quality standards. 

The federal Clean Air Act also requires nonattainment and maintenance areas to prepare air quality plans 
that include strategies for achieving attainment. Air quality plans developed to meet federal 
requirements are referred to as State Implementation Plans (SIPs). The state California Clean Air Act 
also requires plans for nonattainment areas with respect to the state standards (not including state PM-10 
nonattainment areas). Thus, just as areas in California have two sets of designations, many also have two 
sets of air quality plans: one to meet federal requirements relative to the national standards and another to 
meet state requirements relative to the state standards. Such plans are to include strategies for attaining 
or maintaining the standards. 

There are currently four applicable air quality plans for the Bay Area: two related to the national ozone 
standard, one related to the state ozone standard, and one related to the national carbon monoxide 
standard. These plans include the Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard 
(Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 1999), which was developed to meet federal ozone air 
quality planning requirements and which, when approved by U.S. EPA, will replace the current ozone 
SIP, the Ozone Maintenance Plan (ABAG, 1994a). The Bay Area '97 Clean Air Plan (Bay Area Air 
Quality Management District, 1997) was developed to meet planning requirements related to the state 
ozone standard. The Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan (ABAG, 1994b) was developed to ensure 
continued attainment of the national carbon monoxide standard. 

The Bay Area '97 Clean Air Plan represents the second triennial update of the first air qualit\' plan 
(1991) that was developed to meet the requirements of the California Clean Air Act, and it builds upon 
the control measures outlined in the previous plans. None of the new control measures identified in the 
Bay Area '97 Clean Air Plan specifically relate to the types of maritime/industrial activities associated 
with Port lands. 

Toxic Air Contaminants 

Toxic air contaminants are less pervasive in the urban atmosphere than the criteria air pollutants, but arc 
linked to short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic and/or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



67 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

C. AIR QUALITY - SETTING 

There are hundreds of different types of toxic air contaminants, with varying degrees of toxicity. 
Sources of toxic air contaminants include industrial processes, commercial operations (e.g., gasoline 
stations and dry cleaners), and motor vehicle exhaust. Unlike regulations concerning criteria air 
pollutants, there are no regulatory standards for toxic air contaminants based on the volume of emissions. 
Instead, emissions of toxic air contaminants are evaluated based on the degree of health risk that could 
result from exposure to these pollutants. 

In particular, for toxic air contaminants linked to potential increases in cancer due to long-term exposure, 
the measurement of risk is generally calculated based on exposure over many years (e.g., 8 hours per day 
over 40 years for workers; continuous exposure over 70 years for residents), and is typically reported as 
an additional number of cancer cases, compared to the risk that would exist without exposure to the 
pollutant in question. This risk is reported as n chance in 1 million (or n cases per 1 million persons), 
where n is the number of additional cases of cancer, per 1 million individuals over a lifetime (70-year) 
exposure, that could be expected due to the pollutant in question. Typically, the reported risk level 
corresponds to the location, referred to as the "maximally exposed individual (MEI)," where the highest 
calculated risk from toxic air contaminants from a facility would occur. Risks from toxic air 
contaminants diminish at locations that are further from the facility than the MEI. 

Toxic air contaminants are regulated under the 1977 federal Clean Air Act Amendments. The most . 
recent federal Clean Air Act Amendments (1990) reflect a technology-based approach for reducing toxic 
air contaminants. The first phase involves requiring facilities to install Maximum Achievable Control 
Technology (MACT). The MACT standards vary depending on the type of emitting source. U.S. EPA 
has established MACT standards for more than 57 facilities or activities, such as perchloroethylene dry 
cleaning and petroleum refineries, as of the end of year 1999. The second phase of control involves 
determining the residual health risk represented by air toxics emissions sources after implementation of 
MACT standards. 

Two principal laws provide the foundation for state regulation of toxic air contaminants from stationary 
sources. In 1983, the State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1807, which established a process for 
identifying toxic air contaminants and providing the authority for developing retrofit air toxics control 
measures on a statewide basis. The current list of toxic air contaminants includes approximately 
200 compounds, including all of the toxics identified under federal law plus additional compounds, such 
as particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines, which was added in 1998. Air toxics from stationary 
sources in California are also regulated under Assembly Bill 2588, the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" 
Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under Assembly Bill 2588, toxic air contaminant emissions 
from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the regional air quality management district or 
county air pollution control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk 
assessment, and if specific thresholds are violated, they are required to communicate the results to the 
public in the form of notices and public meetings. Depending on the risk level, emitting facilities can be 
required to implement varying levels of risk reduction measures. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



68 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVreONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

C. AIR QUALITY - SETTING 

Regulatory Agencies 

U.S. EPA is responsible for implementing the myriad programs established under the federal Clean Air 
Act, such as establishing and reviewing the national ambient air quality standards and judging the 
adequacy of State Implementation Plans, but has delegated the authority to implement many of the 
federal programs to the states while retaining an oversight role to ensure that the programs continue to be 
implemented. California Air Resources Board (CARB), the State's air quality management agency, is 
responsible for establishing and reviewing the state ambient air quality standards, compiling the 
California State Implementation Plan and securing approval of that plan from U.S. EPA, and identifying 
toxic air contaminants. CARB also oversees the activities of air quality management districts, which are 
organized at the county or regional level. As a general matter, U.S. EPA and CARB regulate emissions 
from mobile sources and the air districts (e.g., the Bay Area Air Quality Management District) regulate 
emissions from stationary sources associated with industrial and commercial activities. 

Criteria Air Pollutants 
Mobile Emissions Sources 

Generally, U.S. EPA and the CARB do not regulate mobile sources of air pollutants through individual 
permits but rather through emissions standards enforced on engine and vehicle manufacturers, through 
fuel specifications, and through vehicle inspection and maintenance programs. The emissions standards 
and inspection / maintenance (i.e., smog check) program for gasoline-powered automobiles are well- 
known, but standards and programs have also been established for most diesel-powered vehicles, 
including heavy trucks. 

On-road heavy-duty diesel truck emissions were first regulated by the State of California in 1969, and by 
U.S. EPA in 1974. Over the years, more stringent emission standards have paralleled improvements in 
control technology. Diesel emissions standards for trucks focus on reducing ozone precursors [i.e., 
reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NO^)] and PM-10. The current set of emissions 
standards for reducing ozone precursors from on-road, diesel-powered vehicles took effect beginning 
with the 1984 model year, and increasingly stringent standards are being phased in through the 2004 
model year. By 2004, the emission standard for new heavy-duty diesel vehicles will be an aggregate of 
2.4 grams of NO^ and ROG, combined, per brake horsepower-hour or an aggregate of 2.5 grams of NO^ 
and ROG, combined, per horsepower-hour with a 0.5 gram per horsepower-hour ROG cap. The current 
set of emissions standards for reducing PM-10 from on-road, diesel-powered vehicles took effect 
beginning in 1982 and increasingly stringent standards were phased in through the 1996 model year, 
which means that all new diesel equipment must meet the PM-10 emissions standard corresponding to 
the 1996 model year. New heavy-duty diesel engines today emit approximately one-third of the ozone 
precursors and one-tenth of the particulate matter compared to engines manufactured in the early 1970s 
(California Air Resources Board, 1998a). 

Emissions from diesel-powered vehicles have also been reduced by modifying the formulation of diesel 
fuel itself. Beginning in 1993, all diesel fuel sold for on-road motor vehicles in California must meet 



Case No. 1999.377E 



69 

ESA 990267 



Soulhcni Wah-rfronl SEIR 



m. ENVreONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - SETTING 



certain specifications (e.g., low sulfur and low aromatic content) established by CARB. "California 
diesel" provides a 7 percent reduction in NO^ and a 25 percent reduction in PM-10 relative to 
conventional diesel fuel. Off-road diesel-powered vehicles and equipment are not required to use 
"California diesel." Lastly, in 1998, CARB initiated enforcement of its roadside heavy-duty vehicle 
inspection program and began implementation of its fleet inspection program, referred to as the Periodic 
Smoke Inspection Program. The former program had been voluntary until 1998 when the program 
became mandatory. Under the latter program, California-based fleet owners, like some of the members 
of the Industry Group such as Bode Gravel Company and RMC Pacific Materials, are required to 
perform annual smoke tests on their heavy-duty vehicles. The purposes of both programs is to reduce 
excessive smoke from heavy-duty vehicles that travel on California streets and highways. (See below 
under "Toxic Air Contaminants" for information on U.S. EPA and CARB efforts to reduce TACs from 
diesel engines.) 

Unlike autos and trucks, over which U.S. EPA and CARB share regulatory authority, U.S. EPA has 
exclusive authority to establish emission standards for marine vessels and locomotives. Until recently, 
emissions associated with marine vessels and locomotives have been largely unregulated. However, in 
1999, U.S. EPA issued a fmal rule that establishes emissions standards for large, commercial, marine, 
diesel engines used in the United States (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). These standards 
take effect for new engines manufactured starting in 2004, 2005, or 2007, depending upon their size. - 
U.S. EPA estimates that implementation of the new standards will lead to a 24 percent reduction in 
emissions of NOx and a 12 percent reduction in emissions of particulate matter by 2030 when the 
program is fully phased in. With respect to locomotives, U.S. EPA established emissions-related 
requirements for newly manufactured and remanufactured locomotives and locomotive engines in 1998 
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998). These new requirements are expected to achieve an 
approximate 45 percent reduction in NOx emissions and an approximate 20 percent reduction in ROG 
and particulate matter emissions from locomotives by year 2015. 

Stationary Emissions Sources 

In the Bay Area, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional agency 
empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions from stationary sources. BAAQMD regulates air quality 
through its permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and through its planning and 
review activities. BAAQMD permit authority would extend to many of the stationary emissions sources 
that would be operated under this project, including concrete and asphalt plants. To secure a BAAQMD 
permit, many new sources must be equipped with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to control 
emissions, and in some cases, must provide emissions credits to offset residual emissions increases.^^ As 



BAAQMD will most likely be providing emissions reductions credits (offsets) from its bank for some of the permits 
associated with the Industry Group. However, these offsets have been ignored for impact evaluation purposes for this SEIR. 
That is, no credit for them has been included in the emissions tables provided in the impact discussion. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



70 

ESA 990267 

t 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

C. AIR QUALITY - SETTING 

a general matter, BAAQMD's permit authority, does not extend to on-road motor vehicles, such as 
automobiles and trucks,^^ or to certain other types of mobile sources, such as locomotives. 

Toxic Air Contaminants 
Mobile Emissions Sources 

The regulatory approach for toxic au" contaminants differs between mobile sources and stationary 
sources. Toxic air contaminants from mobile sources have been generally regulated through 
establishment (by U.S. EPA and CARB) of emissions standards for motor vehicles (imposed on vehicle 
manufacturers), and through specifications for gasoline and diesel fuel sold in Califomia (imposed on 
fuel refineries and retailers), rather than through air quality permits or regulations on how motor vehicles 
are used by the general public. As described above for criteria air pollutants (mobile emissions sources), 
the CARB has already adopted control measures which reduce particulate matter emissions from diesel- 
fueled engines, such as PM-10 emissions standards and diesel fuel specifications. As a result of these 
measures, the projected outdoor ambient air concentration in Califomia of PM-10 due to particulate 
matter emissions from diesel-fueled engines is expected to decrease 43 percent by 2010 (Califomia Air 
Resources Board, 1998c). 

Both U.S. EPA and CARB have proposed new rules to reduce cancer risk from diesel exhaust 
particulates. The proposed federal regulations, published in the Federal Register in June 20(X). would 
substantially reduce - by 97 percent - the amount of sulfur in diesel fuel, allowing for the use of catalytic 
filters (similar to the catalytic converters that have been required on passenger cars for many years) that 
can reduce emissions from diesel tracks. Along with the new fuel rales, U.S. EPA has proposed tighter 
emissions standards that would take effect beginning in 2007. The new rales are proposed to become 
final by late 2000. 

Separately, CARB in July 2000 published a draft plan that identifies a comprehensive program to further 
reduce emissions and resultant health risks associated with emissions of particulate matter ft-om diesel 
engine exhaust (Califomia Air Resources Board, 2000a). If approved by CARB, ARB staff will develop 
a series of new regulations covering both on-road and off-road (both mobile and stationary) diesel 
engines. This draft diesel risk reduction plan is an outgrowth of CARB's decision, which became 
effective in August 1999, to designate diesel exhaust particulates as a toxic air contaminant. CARB 
estimates that the future regulation, when fully implemented, could reduce the statewide cancer risk from 
diesel by 75 percent by 2010 and by 85 percent by 2020 (compared to an estimated 20 percent decrease 
in risk due to cleaner engines that would come about without the new rales). These future regulations 
would rely on retrofitting of existing engines, cleaner new engines (based on the U.S. EPA proposal), and 
low-sulfur diesel fuel, among other things. CARB is also examining alternatives to diesel fuel for 
powering heavy-duty engines, including tracks. The CARB board is scheduled to consider approval of 



An exception exists for fugitive dust generated by truck movement operating within an industrial parcel BAAQMD 
typically does include (and regulate) such emissions through the permit process for the facility. 



Case No. 1999. 377 E 



71 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



9 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

C. AIR QUALITY - SETTING 

the draft diesel risk reduction plan on September 28, 2000. If the CARB board approves the draft plan, it 
is likely then to direct CARB staff to begin development of the regulatory program identified in the plan. 

To be conservative, the analyses in this report do not assume implementation of any of the above 
proposed rules or regulations. 

Stationary Emissions Sources 

To reduce public exposure to toxic air contaminants from stationary sources in the Bay Area, BAAQMD 
administers the Bay Area's Toxic Air Contaminant Control Program, which involves reviewing new 
stationary sources to ensure compliance with required emission controls and limits, maintaining an 
inventory of existing stationary sources of toxic air contaminants, and developing new rules and 
regulations to reduce toxic air contaminant emissions. Under the BAAQMD' s adopted Risk 
Management Policy, BAAQMD typically denies permits to new or modified stationary emissions 
sources where the emissions of toxic air contaminants from such sources, after installation of B ACT for 
toxics (i.e., TBACT), would cause the probability of contracting cancer for the MEI to exceed 10 in a 
million. 

Odorous Emissions 

Regulations concerning odorous emissions apply to stationary emissions sources rather than mobile 
sources. BAAQMD Rules and Regulations (specifically. Regulation 7) place general limitations on 
odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. BAAQMD 
Regulation 7 applies when and if the BAAQMD receives validated odor complaints regarding a specific 
facility from 10 or more complainants in a 90-day period. The regulation restricts emissions of odorous 
substances that cause the ambient air at or beyond the property line to remain odorous after dilution with 
four parts of odor-free air. BAAQMD also regulates odorous emissions through enforcement of the 
public nuisance provisions in BAAQMD Regulation 1. 

REGIONAL AND SAN FRANCISCO AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS 
Criteria Air Pollutants 

BAAQMD operates a regional air quality monitoring network that provides information on ambient 
concentrations of criteria air pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide, and PM-10, which are the 
three pollutants of most concern. 

Monitored ambient air pollutant concentrations reflect the number and strength of emissions sources and 
the influence of topographical and meteorological factors. Table 8 is a summary of monitoring data 
collected at the BAAQMD' s Arkansas Street monitoring station (located at 16th and Arkansas Streets, 
about 1.5 miles northwest of Islais Creek) over the past five years for those pollutants for which the Bay 
Area is, or has been, designated "nonattainment." 



Case No. 1999.377E 



72 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - SETTING 



As shown in Table 8, no exceedances of ozone or carbon monoxide concentrations have been recorded at 
the San Francisco monitoring stations over the past five years, but exceedances of the state PM-10 
standard have occurred on occasion (approximately 4 percent of the time, which is equivalent to 
approximately 15 days per year). PM-2.5 monitoring at the Arkansas Street station began in early 1999, 
and only one year of data is available. The highest 24-hour-average PM-2.5 concentration measured in 
1999 at the Arkansas Street was 71 micrograms per cubic meter, which exceeds the national standard of 
65 micrograms per cubic meter. Table 8 also shows that carbon monoxide concentrations are generally 
higher at the Ellis Street monitoring station (which only monitors carbon monoxide), located in the 
Van Ness Avenue corridor, than at the Arkansas Street station, located in the Potrero Hill area. 

Table 9 presents composite data for the past five years for the BAAQMD's entire regional network of 
monitoring stations. As shown in Table 9, the regional monitoring network has recorded exceedances of 
the state ozone standard on an average of approximately 24 days per year over the past five years. 
Coastal monitoring stations, such as those in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Rafael, record the fewest 
exceedances, while inland valley stations, such as those in Livermore, Concord, and Gilroy, record the 
most violations. Exceedances of national one-hour and national eight-hour ozone standards occur less 
frequently: on approximately 6 and 1 1 days per year, respectively. Table 9 also shows that no 
exceedances of the carbon monoxide standard have been recorded over the past five years. With respect 
to PM-10, the regional monitoring network records exceedances of the state 24-hour standard relatively 
frequently (approximately 5.4 percent of the time over the three most recent years for which data are 
available, which is equivalent to approximately 20 days per year). A monitoring network for PM-2.5 in 
the Bay Area has only recently been established. Based on one year of data, the highest PM-2.5 
concentrations were collected at the stations in Vallejo, San Jose and San Francisco, and exceedances of 
the federal standard were recorded. According to the California Air Resources Board, annual mean 
concentrations of PM-2.5 in California's urban areas range from 10 to 25 micrograms per cubic meter 
(mg/m^), compared to the federal annual PM-2.5 standard of 15 mg/m^. Observed 24-hour average 
peaks reach levels as high as 160 mg/m^, compared to the 24-hour federal PM-2.5 standard of 65 mg/m-\ 
Annual concentrations have declined at most urban sites in California since monitoring began in 1989. 

Several years of PM-2.5 data will be collected in the Bay Area prior to the preparation of a State 
Implementation Plan for PM-2.5, which will probably be required by around 2006 (California Air 
Resources Board, 2000b). 



Case No. 1999. 377 E 



73 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - SETTING 



TABLE 8 

SUMMARY OF LOCAL MONITORING DATA FOR THE 
ARKANSAS STREET AND ELLIS STREET STATIONS, 1995-1999 



State National 
Standard Standard Pollutant Concentration by Year ' 











xyyo 


lyy / 




1000 


Ozone 
















Highest 1-hour average, ppm ^ 


0.09 


0.12 


0.09 


0.07 


0.07 


0.05 


0.08 


Days over State Standard 






n 
U 


U 


f\ 
V 





U 


Days over National Standard 






U 


U 


u 





u 


Highest 8-hoiir average, ppm 


NA 


0.08 


0.07 


0.05 


0.06 


0.05 


0.06 


Days over National Standard 





















Carbon Monoxide (Arkansas Street) 
















Highest 8-hour average, ppm 


9.0 


9 


4.4 


3.9 


3.5 


4.0 


3.7 


Days over Standard 





















Carbon Monoxide (Ellis Street) 
















Highest 8-hour average, ppm 


9.0 


9 


5.5 


5.6 


5.8 


3.7 


4.6 


Days over Standard 















. 





Respirable Particulate Matter (PM-10) 
Highest 24-hour average, |ig/m'^ ^ 
















50 


150 


50 


71 


81 


52 


78 


Number of samples 






61 


61 


61 


61 


61 


Days over State Standard 









2 


3 


1 


6 


Days over National Standard 





















Annual average, |ig/m 


30 


50 


22 


21 


23 


20 


23 



NOTE: Bold values are in excess of applicable standard. NA = Not Applicable or Not Available. 



Data was collected at the Arkansas Street monitoring station unless otherwise noted. The Ellis Street station monitors 
for carbon monoxide only. 

ppm = parts per milhon; \ig/m^ = micrograms per cubic meter. 

PM-10 is not measured every day of the year. The term, "number of samples" refers to the number of 24-hour- 
average PM-10 samples collected in a given year at the Arkansas Street monitoring station. 

SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, Summary of Air Quality Data, Gaseous and Particulate Pollutants, 
1996, 1997, 1998; 1998 and 1999 data are from the CARB website at www.arb.ca.gov/adam. 



Case No. 1999.377E 74 Southern Waterfront SEIR 

ESA 990267 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - SETTING 



TABLE 9 

SUMMARY OF REGIONAL MONITORING DATA FOR THE 
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN, 1995-1999 



State National 
Standard Standard 



Pollutant Concentration by Year * 



Pollutant 






1995 


1996 


1997 


1998 


1999 


Ozone 
















Highest 1-hour average, ppm ''/ 


0.09 


0.12 


0.16 


0.14 


0.11 


0.15 


0.16 


Days over State Standard 






28 


34 


8 


29 


20 


Days over National Standard 






11 


8 





8 


3 


Highest 8-hour average, ppm 


NA 


0.08 


0.12 


0.11 


0.08 


0.11 


0.12 


Days over National Standard 






18 


14 





16 


9 


Carbon Monoxide 
















Highest 8-hour average, ppm 


9.0 


9 


6.1 


7.1 


6.3 


6.3 


6.3 


Days over Standard 





















Respirable Particulate Matter (PM-10) 
Highest 24-hour average, p.g/m'^ 
















50 


150 


74 


76 


95 


92 


114 


Number of sample-days ^ 






89 


88 


81 


NA 


NA 


Days over State Standard 






7 


3 


4 


5 


NA 


Days over National Standard 





















Highest annual average, ng/ra 


30 


50 


26 


22 


24 


23 


25 



NOTE: Bold values are in excess of applicable standard. NA = Not Applicable or Not Available. 
* This table summarizes the data from all of the monitoring stations within the Bay Area. 

b 3 

ppm = parts per milUon; fig/m = micrograms per cubic meter. 

PM-10 is not measured every day of the year. "Number of sample-days" refers to the number of days in a given year 
during which PM-10 was measured at one or more monitoring stations in the Bay Area. 

SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, Summary of Air Quality Data. Gaseous and Particulate Pollutants. 
1996, 1997, 1998; 1998 and 1999 data are from the CARB website at www.arb.ca.gov/adam. 



Toxic Air Contaminants 

BAAQMD also operates a regional monitoring network that collects ambient concentration data on some 
of the more pervasive toxic air contaminants. Table 10 suirmiarizes three years of available toxic air 
contaminant concentration data collected at the air quality monitoring station located on Arkansas Street 
in San Francisco and compares the data with the concentration data based on the entire regional network 
of toxic air contaminant monitoring stations in the Bay Area. Table 10 indicates that ambient toxic air 
contaminant concentrations at the Arkansas Street station are generally similar to. or less than, the 



Case No. 1999.377E 



75 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVreONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - SETTING 



TABLE 10 

SAN FRANCISCO, ARKANSAS STREET STATION, 
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS, 1994, 1996, 1998 

San Francisco Station ^ As Percent of Bay Area 

Mean Concentration (ppb) Mean Concentration 

Toxic Air Contaminant 1994 1996 1998 1994 1996 1998 



Methylene Chloride 


0.69 


0.50 


0.43 


99% 


71% 


96% 


Chloroform 


0.01 


0.01 


0.02 


100% 


50% 


200% 


Methyl Chloroform 


0.41 


0.24 


0.09 


64% 


77% 


75% 


Carbon Tetrachloride 


0.11 


0.10 


0.10 


100% 


91% 


100% 


Trichloroethylene 


<0.08 


<0.08 


0.04 


100% 


100% 


80% 


Benzene 


1.16 


0.55 


0.66 


89% 


100% 


106% 


Perchloroethylene 


0.17 


0.09 


0.15 


"68% 


45% 


100% 


Toluene 


3.69 


1.72 


1.96 


137% 


83% 


119% 


1,3-Butadiene 


<0.45 


0.18 


0.33 


100% 


86% 


94% 



^ Data for San Francisco are from the air quality monitoring station on Arkansas Street in San Francisco, which is located 

approximately 1.5 miles northwest of Islais Creek, 
b ppb = parts per bilhon. 

c "Mean Concentration" is the arithmetic average of the air samples collected in each of the given years at the 15 monitoring 
stations in the Bay Area. In calculating the mean, samples with concentrations less than the "level of detection" (LOD) were 
assumed to be equal to one-half the LOD concentration. 

^ These percentages compare San Francisco measured concentrations to the average for the entire Bay Area. For example, 
100% indicates that San Francisco's mean concentration is the same as the mean concentration calculated based on the data 
from all of the monitoring stations in the Bay Area; 50% indicates that San Francisco's mean concentration is one-half that of 
the mean concentrations for the entire Bay Area. 

SOURCES: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Toxic Air Contaminant Control Program Annual Report, 1994, August 
1995; Bay Area Air Quahty Management District, Toxic Air Contaminant Program Annual Report, 1996, 
December 1997; Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Toxic Air Contaminant Program, Annual Report, 
1998, December 1999. 



average concentrations of those pollutants measured at other stations in the Bay Area. The data in 
Table 10 show that ambient benzene levels declined substantially in 1996 with the advent of Phase 2 
reformulated gasoline. Due largely to the observed reductions in ambient benzene and 1,3-butadiene 
levels, the average cancer risk in the Bay Area from ambient levels of toxic air contaminants has 
declined though the 1990s. Based on region-wide monitoring data for year 1998, the incremental cancer 
risk from exposure to ambient levels of toxic air contaminants - excluding diesel particulate matter - has 
been estimated to be 199 in a million, which is over 40 percent less than had been estimated for year 
1993 (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1999b). 

Diesel particulate matter consists of more than one compound, making monitoring more difficult than for 
the single TACs listed in Table 10. However, based on a limited amount of data, CARB has estimated 



Case No. 1999.377E 



76 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - SETTING 



the Statewide, ambient, "population-weighted," cancer risk due to essentially all toxic air contaminants, 
based on year 2000 emissions, at 758 in 1 million, of which 540 in 1 million, or about 70 percent, is 
estimated to be due to diesel particulate (California Air Resources Board, 2000a). That is, the average 
individual in the State of California has a 0.8 in 1,000 chance - beyond the risk from other sources, 
including hereditary factors and exposure to other substances - of developing cancer due to toxic air 
contaminants in the ambient air. The average risk in the Bay Area is less than the statewide "population- 
weighted" average since the latter is influenced heavily by the large numbers of people living in the Los 
Angeles metropolitan area. The average risk from ambient toxic air contaminants is approximately 
30 percent less in the Bay Area than in the South Coast Air Basin (i.e., the Los Angeles metropolitan 
area) and approximately 17 percent less in the Bay Area than that calculated for the statewide 
"population- weighted" average (California Air Resources Board, 1998b). 

EXISTING EMISSIONS WITHIN PROJECT VICINITY 

Existing emissions sources within the project vicinity include large stationary sources, such as the 
Potrero and Hunters Point power plants, and other stationary sources, as well a mobile sources. The 
smaller stationary sources in the area, such as paint shops and small boilers, emit quantities of emissions 
that are substantially less than the mobile sources and the power plants. Mobile sources include autos 
and trucks traveling on Interstate 280, located approximately one mile west of the project site, and auto 
and trucks traveling on nearby Third Street and other local streets. 



SENSITIVE RECEPTORS 

Some land uses are considered more sensitive than others to air pollution. The reasons for greater than 
average sensitivity include pre-existing health problems, proximity to emissions source, or duration of 
exposure to air pollutants. Schools, hospitals and convalescent homes are considered to be relatively 
sensitive to poor air quality because children, elderly people and the infirm are more susceptible to 
respiratory infections and other air quality-related health problems than the general public. Residential 
areas are also sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time. 

The project area contains primarily cargo shipping, ship repair yard, industrial, and service, storage, and 
light industrial uses; open space at Warm Water Cove, along the north and south banks of Islais Creek, 
and at Pier 98, Heron's Head Park; and vacant land. No residential uses are located within the project 
area; the nearest residential areas are those in the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood (about one-half 
mile or more south of the project area), atop Potrero Hill (about one-third of a mile or more west and 
northwest of the project area), along Third Street (about one-half mile or more southwest of the project 
area), and in the small community known as Dogpatch. a block west of Third Street near 22nd Street. In 
the vicinity of the proposed Illinois Street Intermodal Bridge, there are existing vacant lands and 
industrial/manufacturing uses. 

A 1997 hospitalization study conducted by physicians from the San Francisco Department of Public 
Health and the University of California at San Francisco (Aragon and Grumbach. 1997) indicated that 



Case No. 1999.377E 



77 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - SETTING 



hospitalization rates for asthma, hypertension, diabetes, and congestive heart failure are higher in the 
Bay view/Hunters Point area than in other parts of San Francisco. The study also reported that the Bay 
Area has among the highest age-adjusted breast cancer rates in California and that, while white women in 
San Francisco had a higher rate of breast cancer, black women were more likely to die from breast 
cancer. In the predominantly African-American Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood, the study 
reported an 87 percent higher age-adjusted death rate from breast cancer than for the City as a whole. 
The study also found that Bayview-Hunters Point rates for other cancers, including female cervical 
cancer and male prostate and lung cancer, were higher than in most San Francisco neighborhoods. 

The study did not evaluate the cause(s) of the observed higher rates of these ailments, and no inferences 
can be made regarding the relationships between industrial emissions, mobile emissions, other sources, 
and health problems in the area. A detailed study, considering health access issues such as availability of 
regular medical care, ability to pay, diet, and others, as well as environmental factors such as pollution, 
would be required to begin to address the causes of poor health outcomes in the Bayview-Hunters Point. 
Such a study is beyond the scope of this SEIR. However, because of the location and concentration of 
uses proposed by members of the Industry Group and the sensitivity of nearby populations, this SEER, 
goes well beyond the typical level of air quality analysis in EIRs to address potential health effects of 
localized air pollution (see p. 91). 

IMPACTS 

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

The City has not formally adopted CEQA significance criteria, but generally considers a project to have a 
significant effect on air quality if it would (1) conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable 
air quality plan; (2) violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected 
air quality violation; (3) result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment 
pollutant; (4) expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or (5) create 
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. 

BAAQMD has published a set of recommendations that provide specific guidance on evaluating projects 
under CEQA relative to the above general criteria (Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1999a). 
For temporary construction-phase impacts, BAAQMD recommends a qualitative approach that focuses 
on the dust control measures that would be implemented. If appropriate mitigation measures are 
implemented to control PM-10 emissions, then the impact from construction would be less than 
significant. 

For evaluating long-term operational emissions increases on a regional basis, effects are assessed by 
evaluating the total amount of criteria pollutants that the project would emit throughout the Bay Area 
airshed. Based on BAAQMD guidance, this report uses a criterion of 80 pounds per day or 15 tons per 
year from indirect sources (such as autos, trucks, trains, and ships) to identify projects that generate 
significant increases in regional emissions of ROG, NOx, or PM-10. BAAQMD recommends that 

Case No. 1999.377E 78 Southern Waterfront SEIR 

ESA 990267 



m. ENVreONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - IMPACTS 



cumulative air quality effects be discussed with reference to the consistency of a project to the regional 
Clean Air Plan. The B AAQMD recommendations are used herein to identify significant regional air 
quality effects of the project and significant cumulative effects. 

The assessment of local impacts is conducted through dispersion modeling to evaluate the concentration 
of particular pollutants on nearby receptors. This approach is used for carbon monoxide, which unlike 
other criteria pollutants, does not disperse readily over wide areas and is therefore more appropriately 
examined nearer the source. For this report, carbon monoxide concentrations are modeled at selected 
intersections (where two separate roadway sources come together, resulting in the highest localized 
concentrations) and compared against the state standard for one-hour and eight-hour periods of 20 parts 
per million (ppm) and 9 ppm, respectively. 

This report also evaluates localized concentrations of respirable particulate matter (PM-10), using a 
threshold that is equivalent to the standards used by BAAQMD to identify significant air quality impacts 
under their New Source Review rule (BAAQMD Regulation 2-2-233). Specifically, this SEIR uses 
concentration thresholds of 5.0 micrograms per cubic meter, 24-hour-average, and 1.0 microgram per 
cubic meter, annual average, to identify "substantial" contributions to existing or projected PM-10 
exceedances, which would be considered a significant effect. 

As described in the setting section, the impact of toxic air contaminants is evaluated based on a potential 
to increase the occurrence of cancer and is typically reported as an additional number of cancer cases, 
compared to the risk that would exist without exposure to the pollutant in question. This risk is reponed 
as n chance in 1 million (or n cases per 1 million persons), where n is the number of additional cases of 
cancer that could be expected due to the pollutant in question. This report uses an incremental risk of 
10 in 1 million (10 additional cancer cases per million persons over a lifetime (70-year) exposure, or a 
1 in 100,000 chance of a single individual developing cancer, beyond the pre-existing risk) as the 
significance threshold, based on the BAAQMD's procedure for permitting of stationary sources, which 
typically uses 10 in 1 million as the standard below which individual projects may be permitted. 



IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 

Construction-period impacts were evaluated qualitatively and with reference to the dust control measures 
that can be implemented to reduce the temporary air quality effects associated with construction. 
Operational impacts were evaluated quantitatively through estimates of pollutant emissions and 
concentrations. Operational impacts were examined for two years: 2003, when the Industry Group 
project components would be in operation, the Illinois Street intermodal bridge would be in place, and 
the Muni Third Street light rail line is anticipated to begin operations; and 2015. by which time the 



Case No. 1999.377E 



79 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - IMPACTS 



Future Port Development described in the Project Description would occur.^'* With implementation of 
the Industry Group components, there is anticipated to be a shift, over time, in the transport of aggregate 
raw materials used in the production of ready-mix concrete, from truck to ship. As described in 
Appendix A, approximately half of the aggregate would be brought to the project area by ship by 2003 
(and 2001), with this percentage increasing to 80 percent by 2015. These shifts in mode of transport are 
reflected in this analysis, as they are in the transportation analysis. 

Two separate operational analyses were conducted for both analysis years. One aspect of the analysis 
quantifies the net change in emissions due to project-related sources from a regional perspective 
(emissions occurring within the multi-county air basin), including emissions from stationary sources 
(e.g., industrial plants and the like) and from mobile sources (i.e., motor vehicles, ships, trains, etc.). The 
other aspect of the analysis identifies what portion of the regional emissions would be experienced 
locally. 

For the regional air quality analysis, mobile-source emissions are calculated regardless of where they 
occur within the Bay Area, to the extent that they result in new emissions, compared to existing 
conditions. This is the typical approach to air quality analysis, and takes into account emissions not only 
in the immediate project area, but also emissions from, for example, vehicle trips that begin outside the 
immediate area, or even outside San Francisco, and end within the project vicinity. This "emissions 
inventory" for the project does not count existing trips - for example, those being made to and from the 
existing ready-mix concrete plants in the Mission Bay area - because those trips would not represent a 
change from existing to future conditions, except to the extent that the distance traveled is anticipated to 
change. The resulting volumes of criteria air pollutants that are reported would affect the entire Bay 
Area air shed, and are not directly reflective of local conditions in the vicinity of the project components 
because only those emissions generated within the immediate vicinity would contribute meaningfully to 
the local concentrations of various pollutants; that is, for example, emissions from motor vehicles in the 
East Bay or from ships passing beneath the Golden Gate Bridge are dispersed and diluted such that they 
would have little air quality impact in Bayview-Hunters Point or Potrero Hill. 

To determine the local effects of increased emissions with the project, this EIR also quantifies local 
project emissions and effects, in particular, due to project-related stationary sources and related truck 
traffic, on the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood. These calculations are provided in recognition of 
the concentration of industrial uses proposed, and the anticipated corresponding concentration of truck 
traffic, and because a substantial volume of the Phase I vehicle trips related to the Industry Group project 
components are currently being made, under existing conditions, to and from other parts of 
San Francisco. For example, delivery of concrete is made from the existing Bode Gravel Company and 



Unlike the traffic analysis, no separate air quality analysis was conducted for 2001. This is because the trip generation from 
the Industry Group components would be the same in 2001 and 2003, but by 2003 there would be additional emissions from 
other sources in the project area, including cargo shipping at Piers 80 and 94-96, and assumed expansion of an existing 
recycling facility at Pier 96. Therefore, 2003 provides for a more conservative evaluation of short-term impacts. (The traffic 
analysis included 2001 to differentiate between "before" and "after" conditions vis-^-vis the Third Street light rail line.) 



Case No. 1999.377 E 80 Southern Waterfront SEIR 

ESA 990267 



m. ENVreONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - LMPACTS 



RMC Pacific Materials plants located on Third Street at 16th Street and at Mariposa Street, respectively. 
Existing delivery of asphalt concrete is made to locations in San Francisco from plants in Berkeley and 
in Brisbane. Therefore, the change in location of, for example, the Bode and RMC concrete plants, 
would result in very little change in emissions viewed from a regional perspective, although there would 
be the potential for a proportionately larger increase in the concentrations of certain key emissions in the 
immediate vicinity of the new plants (with a corresponding decrease in emissions concentrations at the 
existing locations). These localized calculations report results for carbon monoxide concentrations at 
local intersections, as well as concentrations of respirable particulate matter (PM-10) and diesel 
particulate matter. 

Like the regional emissions calculations, these local calculations include emissions from on-site 
stationary sources and emissions from vehicle trips, train trips and ships. However, in this instance, the 
relocated stationary sources (ready-mix plants and proposed asphalt plant) would result in increased 
emissions within the immediate area, even if their effect on regional emissions would be negligible. 
With regard to vehicle trips, only trips within the project vicinity are counted in this local emissions 
calculation. For the Industry Group components, a maximum trip length of three miles to or from Third 
Street at Islais Creek - the approximate center point of the Industry Group sites - was used. For this 
local calculation, trucks traveling in excess of three miles (to the north) were not assumed to generate 
emissions that would directly affect the neighborhood. Therefore, with regard to existing trips - for 
example, those being made to and from the existing ready-mix concrete plants in the Mission Bay area - 
this local inventory only includes the emissions generated by that portion of the trips that occur between 
the existing concrete plants and Islais Creek, which is the change from existing to future conditions. In 
addition, project-related emissions from trucks currently traveling to and from the south were not added 
to this local inventory, because these truck emissions were considered to be already present in the 
immediate neighborhood. 

Both sets of emissions estimates (regional and local) include stationary and mobile sources associated 
with the various project components. For stationary-source emissions, the calculations were based on 
information contained in BAAQMD permit applications for those projects for which draft applications 
have been prepared; information was extrapolated to the analysis of other similar uses. For mobile- 
sources, emissions were calculated based on published emission factors for specific vehicle types and on 
vehicle-miles-traveled figures generated by the traffic analysis. The net change in emissions due to the 
project from the regional perspective was then compared with the applicable emissions-based 
significance thresholds. The net change in emissions from a project-area perspective were then used as 
input to air quality modeling for carbon monoxide, PM-10, and diesel particulate. 

With respect to concentrations, carbon monoxide concentrations were evaluated using carbon monoxide 
protocols developed at U.C. Davis for transportation projects (Institute of Transportation Studies. 1997). 
The screening-level protocol was used to identify intersections where more detailed analysis should be 
conducted, and the more detailed protocol was then applied to those identified intersections using 
Caltrans' line-dispersion model, CALINE4. PM-10 concentrations levels due to project sources were 



Case No. 1999.377E 



81 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVreONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - IMPACTS 



calculated using the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) dispersion model. The estimated carbon monoxide 
concentrations based on the protocols and CALINE4 were then added to estimated background 
concentrations and the totals were compared against the applicable ambient carbon monoxide standards. 

Project-related PM-10 concentration estimates were made for approximately 16 receptor locations in the 
nearby residential area. A component of PM-10 derives from combustion of diesel fuel, and the ISC 
modeling results were tabulated such that the diesel PM-10 concentrations could be extracted from the 
results for total PM-10 concentrations to provide the basis for calculating the incremental cancer risk 
from diesel PM emissions from project-related sources. 

CONSTRUCTION-PERIOD IMPACTS 

Grading and other ground-disturbing construction activities would temporarily affect local air quality 
intermittently during construction activities for each project component, causing a temporary increase in 
particulate dust and other pollutants. Heavy equipment would generate fugitive dust and would emit 
combustion products, including ozone precursors (ROG and NOx), carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and 
PM-10, but the most significant emissions would be fugitive dust. 

Fugitive dust emission during demolition and excavation would increase particulate concentrations 
within the project area. Dustfall can be expected at times on surfaces within 200 to 800 feet. Under 
winds exceeding 12 miles per hour, localized effects including human discomfort might occur downwind 
from blowing dust. Construction dust is composed primarily of particularly large particles that settle out 
of the atmosphere more rapidly with increasing distance from the source and are easily filtered by human 
breathing passages. In general, construction dust would result in more of a nuisance than a health hazard 
in the vicinity of construction activities. About one-third of the dust generated by construction activities 
consists of smaller size particles in the range that can be inhaled by humans {i.e., PM-10), although those 
particles are generally inert. Persons with respiratory diseases immediately downwind of the site could 
be sensitive to this dust. 

The Illinois Street bridge would require minimal grading. Some earthmoving and grading would be 
required as part of the improvements to cormecting rail beds and roads, but this would be no more 
extensive than typical urban street repaving operations. In general, with the exception of the Mission 
Valley Rock / Bode Gravel Company sites at Pier 92, most of the Industry Group project components 
would be located on land that is currently paved, and ground disturbance for grading and earthmoving 
would be limited. Buildings and other structures to be constructed would be relatively small and/or 
temporary structures, without a requirement for massive foundations, and existing buildings would be 
used as part of many of the project components. 

Much of the potential future development on Port lands assumed in this analysis would occur on unpaved 
lands. Because the terrain is flat, however, grading would not be expected to be extensive, unless 
subsurface parking or other excavation were required. Up to about 100 acres could be developed, about 
three-fourths of which is currently unpaved. Development would occur in stages, over the next 15 years. 

Case No. 1999.377E 82 Southern Waterfront SEIR 

ESA 990267 



in. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALm' - LMPACTS 



with the volume of PM-10 emitted from any given project dependent on the area of earth being graded or 
otherwise disturbed. Uncontrolled PM-10 emissions can total about 51 pounds per day per acre 
(BAAQMD, 1999a, p. 28). 

BAAQMD has identified a set of feasible PM-10 control measures for construction activities, and 
mitigation was included in the Waterfront Plan EIR to reduce construction-related air quality impacts to a 
less-than-significant level; a revised version of this mitigation measure is included in this SEIR as 
Mitigation Measure No. C-5 (see p. 148). With implementation of this measure, construction-related air 
quality effects would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. 

OPERATIONAL IMPACTS 
Regional Air Quality Analysis 

Regional emissions resulting from operations were calculated based on information supplied by the 
applicants and on emission factors released by U.S. EPA and CARB. The emissions of criteria pollutants 
were estimated for maximum daily and annual operations, and they include emissions from stationary 
sources (i.e., fixed equipment) on the project sites, from commuter trips, from haul truck trips, ships, and 
rail engines for those Industry Group project components that would handle construction materials, and 
from buses at the Coach USA site. Assumptions used to quantify project emissions are described in 
Appendix D, Air Quality. Additional background for the air quality assumptions can be found in 
Appendix A, Assumptions for Production of Construction Aggregates, and Appendix C, Transportation. 

The regional project emissions inventory is sunmiarized in Table 11, where the results are compared with 
BAAQMD-recommended significance thresholds, for both daily and annual emissions. Tables 12 
through 15 provide a component-by-component breakdown of the emissions estimates that provided the 
basis for summaries shown in Table 11. Table 1 1 shows that the maximum daily emissions of reactive 
organic gases (ROG), nitrogen dioxide (NO^), and respirable particulates (PM-10) from all project 
components combined would exceed the significance threshold of 80 pounds per day in both 2003 and 
2015. The significance threshold for annual emissions of 15 tons per year would also be exceeded for 
ROG and NOx in each year. Therefore, the project would result in a significant effect with regard to 
emissions of criteria pollutants. This significant impact would occur regionally within the multi-county 
air basin and are not directly reflective of local conditions (see "Local Air Quality Analysis," p. 89. for a 
discussion of project effects on localized emissions concentrations). This impact cannot be reduced to a 
less-than-significant level because of the magnitude of the project. 

As seen in Table 11, the source of the greatest amount of emissions would be ship and rail traffic, 
particularly on days when ships call at the Port's terminals. (The daily emissions data presented in 
Table 11 and Tables 12 and 14 are indicative of days when ships call.) As indicated in Table 12. roughly 
60 percent of the NOx would be generated, on a daily basis, by the Industry Group components and the 
remainder by non-Industry Group shipping. On an annual basis, however, the split would be reversed. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



83 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



in. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - IMPACTS 



TABLE 11 
ESTIMATED NET CHANGE IN 
REGIONAL POLLUTANT EMISSIONS, 2003 AND 2015^ 



ANALYSIS YEAR 2003 



Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs./day) 



Significance 





Stationary 


Motor 




Ship and 




Pet. of Bay 


Criteria 


PoUutant 


Sources'' 


Vehicle 


Truck 


Rail 


Total 


Area ^ 


abs7day) 




98 


17 


-18 


221 


^18 


n 04. 


o\j 


Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 


58 


4 


-125 


2,038 


1,975 


0.22 


80 


Particulate Matter (PM-10) 


15 


1 


-13 


79 


82 


0.02 


80 






Amiual Emissions (tons/year) 




Significance 






Stationary 


Motor 




Ship and 


Total 


Criteria 




Pollutant 


Sources ^ 


Vehicle 


Truck 


Rail 


Emissions 


(tons/year) 




Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 


10.2 


2.5 


-1.8 


7.7 


18.6 


15 




Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 


6.0 


0.6 


-12.4 


74.5 


68.7 


15 




Particulate Matter (PM-IO) 


1.5 


0.1 


-1.4 


2.8 


3.0 


15 





ANALYSIS YEAR 2015 



Pollutant 



Maximum Daily Emissions (lbs./day) 



Stationary 
Sources'' 



Motor 
Vehicle 



Truck 



Ship and 
Rail 



Total 



Pet. of Bay 
Area'^ 



SigniHcance 

Criteria 
(Ibs^day) 



Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 


135 


6 


3 


185 


329 


0.05 


80 


Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 


79 


2 


18 


1,938 


2,037 


0.28 


80 


Particulate Matter (PM-10) 


30 


1 


1 


67 


98 


0.03 


80 



Pollutant 



Stationary 
Sources'' 



Annual Emissions (tons/year) 



Motor 
Vehicle ^ 



Truck 



Ship and 
Rail 



Total 
Emissions 



Significance 

Criteria 
(tons/year) 



Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 
Particulate Matter (PM-10) 



14.1 


0.9 


0.8 


17.9 


33.7 


15 


8.3 


0.3 


5.1 


170.3 


183.9 


15 


2.5 


0.1 


0.3 


5.8 


8.7 


15 



This table provides estimates of the net change in regional emissions under the project case in 2003 and 2015 
relative to existing conditions. Total project emissions would be disbursed throughout the Bay Area, and would 
not be experienced locally except as described in the following sections (see "Local Air Quality Analysis"). 
See Tables 12-15 for emissions estimates of individual project components, and Appendix D for more detail. 
Based on BAAQMD permit applications. 

Includes non-truck vehicle emissions (i.e., employee and visitor vehicle trips). 

Percentage of total daily Bay Area emissions in 2003 and 2015 based on GARB emissions inventories. 



SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



84 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



C/3 

H 
U 

I 

> 

< 
D 
C 

< 





o 
o 

H 



o 



O 

2 



O 
O 
OS 



00 

o 



O f^l <NI 
V 



(N m 

cnI cnI 



ool 



ool 



00 



in 



00 

ft 



o 

oo 



o 
oc 



o 

oo 



1—1 
CQ 

< 



O 
Oh 

O 

u 

H 

U 

o 

Pi! 
>^ 

O 

c« 

tZ3 



H 
Z 

<i; 

3 

o 

z 
o 

Pi 
>^ 

Q 

Z 

O 
z 
< 

K 

U 

H 

Z 
Q 

H 

H 

c« 



C 

S 
CO 



3 



> 

o 
o 



u 
3 

o 

00 



00 



o 



O 
O 
PS 



Oh 



o 

:z; 



o 
o 



X 

O 

2: 



o 
o 



X 

O 



o 
o 

0< 



-a 

u 

w 
B. 
1/1 
-O 
S 
3 
O 

•3 

1/5 

z 
O 

>- 



ml 



CO 



vol 



(N 



lO >0 IT) in W-) 

d o C) o o 

V V V V V 



<o u-i in >n in 
d c5 d d d 

V V V V V 



in m >n m 
d -i| 



00 



O 
V 



o iii <N o — 'I ;2 

d 



00 

0^ 



O O Ol 



O O Ol 



42 
e 

c 
o 
a 

S 
o 
U 

a 
s 
o 

fca 

o 



3 
C 



OO 

m 



00 
0\ 



u 
o 
OS 
>> 
S. 
"(5 
> 



u is 

4> 



< 

.id £i 



O 



OS 



c 

o 

u '35 
^ S i 



o 



00 
lU 
u- 
00 

00 
< 



o 
nj 

CU _ 

i m ^ 

00 



O Ol Ol 



O Ol Ol 



O Ol Ol 



O —I -^1 



Ol Oj 



o ml ml 



o o 
V V 



in 

d f^l ml 
V 



CN a\\ Z-A 



O Ol Ol 



O Ol Ol 



O Ol Ol 



c 

lU 

E 
u 

00 

c < 

<2 00 



u 
o 

u 



00 

u 

u. 

00 

00 
< 

c 
o 
Z 

1 

o 

3 

to 



CN 
CN 



m 



00 

»n 



m 

CN 



OO 

>n 



00 
ON 



0O| 

cnI 



ool 



mi 



m 
ml 



ml 



Ol 



Ol 



Ol 



Ol 



00 

m 
o 



CN 
«N 



CN 



00 



00 



E c 

^ Q. 



a* 



eo 



^ — ou 
O u 



1^ 

i 

n 

m 



■7 <^ 



o 

3 

C/3 



3 6 



o 
H 



or) 
f- 
U 
< 

I 

H 
< 

a 
< 



CQ 

< 



o 
o 
r< 

H 



O 

o 

U 
H 

U 
tii 

o 

> 

Z 

O 

g 

H 

Z 

H 

O 
On 

z 
o 



o 



T3 
C 



00 



o 

3 



> 

o 
o 



O 
Z 



o 
o 



Oh 



X 

o 

Z 



o 
o 
Pi 



0- 



X 

o 
z 



o 
o 



X 

O 

z 



o 
o 



00 

d 



c4 



d 



'it 
c4 



00 



o 

V 



ol ol 



O 

V 



(N OOI Ol 

d — i| r4l 



O Ol Ol 



O Ol Ol 



O Ol Ol 



o d 

V 



CNI (NI 



dl dl 



0\ 

d 



IT) 
CM 



in 























d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 


V 


V 


V 


V 


V 


V 


V 


V 


V 
























0> 


0> 


0> 


0> 


0> 


d 


0> 


d 


d 


d 






cs 






00 








in 


d 


d 

V 


d 


d 


d 


d 


d 









"^1 



— < r-l 



"^1 



dl 



vol 
dl 



Ol 



Ol 



Ol 



o 



00 



00 



00 

r4 



in 



r4 



00 



Sip© 



t-H 

3 

O 
00 



c 



X 

O 
Z 



o 
o 

ec5 



et 
>^ 

a 

e 

o 



IZi 

Z 

o 



z 



^ - ^ ° dl 



o 2 <^ °' 2 



O o O ^ C5I o 



o Ol Ol 




O Ol Ol 



O Ol Ol 



c 
£ 

ID 

c < 

« 00 



«3 



o 

u 



60 
lU 
k> 

bO 
< 

c 

o 
Z 



o 

Si 
3 
00 



O 
so 



d 



a. 

3 
O 

Urn 

o 

>> 

la 

s 



O 

s 

IZ3 



Ol 



Ol 



Ol 



e 



Qo 

U c<3 
O O 



o 
H 



I 

u 

u 
o 
c 

CO 
CJ 

'S 

op 



I 



H 



IT) 
© 

H 
Z 



O 

o 

u 

H 
U 

o 

z 
o 

HH 

CZ5 
tZi 

M 

H 
H 

o 

Oh 

< 

z 
o 

o 
< 

Z 

CJ 
Z 
<J 

u 



H 



O 



o 
o 



o 

2 



O 

o 



. X 

o 

2; 



o 
o 
Pi 



o 



o 
o 



C/3 



X 

d p 



o 
o 



cs 
-o 

a. 

-o 
c 
s 

o 
a, 

i/3 
Z 

o 

C/5 



1-1 

Q 



mi 



CO 



o o 

V V 



o 

CM 



0\ 



V 



IT) m IT) in lO 

d d d o d 

V V V V V 



lo w-i m W-) (T) 
d d d d d 

V V V V V 



IT) 



CM 



o 
V 



>n >o IT) 

d d dl 



o o oi 



cs 



o 

CO 



O ro O O OI m 



C 

e 

o 

I 

o 
U 
a. 

3 

o 
u 

O 



S 
C 



> 

u 
•a 

o 



o 
o 

> 

B 

O 



o 

CL, 



s 1 

oil 

It- BO 



cQ 

CO 



d -I -I 

V 



d 21 2i 



—I vol t--l 



O OI OI 



O ml ml 



in in 
d d 

V V 



m 
d 

V 



—I ml Ttl 



O OI OI 



O OI OI 



O OI OI 



c 
u 
E 

60 

c < 



o 
U 



60 
U 
b« 
60 
60 
< 

c 

o 
Z 



J3 



m 
m 



o 



CN 
04 



OS 

m 



o OI OI 



O OI OI 



O ~*\ -H| 



m 



o 



O 
m 



ON 



m 



a 

3 

o 



s 
■a 
c 



2 

o 

3 

C/3 



51 



0\| 



o 



oo 



oo! 



in 
m 



m 



OI 



OI 



OI 



OI 



OI 



00 

0\ 



m 



m 



so 



00 

ON 



00 



00 



o 



as 



m 



c ^ 

e 60 
B c 

^ a. 

« IE 

1-^ 60 

r !g 

O tJ 

11 

w ^ 

3 C 

ti. — 



O 
00 



O 

00 



O 
00 



Co 



i 

s 



OO O 
< 



12 



o 
H 



H 
U 

I 

>- 

< 

a 

< 
u 



< 



in 

o 
<s 

H 

Z 

Z 

o 
o 

H 

U 

o 

>- 
tt 

Z 

o 

S3 

i/5 



Eh 

z 

o 

< 

Z 
O 

o 
Pi 



z 
< 
z 

o 
z 
< 
s 
u 

H 



Q 
H 



X 

O 

z 



o 
o 



X 

O 

z 



o 
o 



CL, 



x: 
O 

z 



o 
o 



Oh 



X 

O 
Z 



O 
O 





o 














o 


Ph 






O 




00 


X 


> 


O 


« 


Z 


c 




_o 






o 




o 







a 

</> 
c 
o 



t/3 
Z 

o 



z 



-2 
e 

e 
o 
a 

S 
o 
U 
a 

3 

O U 

*s > 

T3 

O 



3 
S 



O 



vol 



ri 
1 1 



VO 



VO 



c4 



o o o o o 

V V V V V 



o 

V 



o o o o o 

V V V V V 



o o o o o 

V V V V V 



-H _C — ' <^ 

d d 

V V o 



o cs 



d 



<=> od °. « 



O Tt O O Ol 



o 

o 
>^ 

> 

c 

o 



H Pi 

60 <D 



o 

cn 
U 



60 
< 

o 

Oh 



.22 O 

m S S2 



U .2 



C8 
(50 
lU 

Ui 

00 

< 



O 

3 
C/5 



O 

V 



ol ol 



"J ONl 0\| 

o _;| ^1 



o 

V 



ool onI 

dl dl 



O Ol Ol 



O Ol Ol 



O Ol Ol 



o d 

V 



m CO 
dl dl 



O o o 
V V V 



^ dl dl 



o 

V 



vol 

dl dl 



O Ol Ol 



O Ol Ol 



O Ol Ol 



c 

u 

s 

00 

c < 



o 

o 
U 



CO 
M 
U 

Ui 

M 
(30 
< 
C 

o 
Z 



o 

3 
00 



CS 



oo 



o 

vd 



ON 

m 



CN 



d 



d 



cs 



od 



O. 
3 

O 

o 

u 

(A 

3 
B 



O 

ja 

3 

C/3 



vol 
vol 



■^1 



o\| 



cnI 



Ol 



Ol 



Ol 



Ol 



Ol 



Ol 



00 



OS 



00 



o 



ev 



00 

o 



o 



irj 
r4 



00 



e (30 
B C 

11 

QO 
(30 

o o 



-a 
_ ^ 

3 C 



2 
o 
H 



o 



OH 



1 

u 

u 
o 
c 
a 

'S 

60 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

C. AIR QUALITY - LMPACTS 

with non-Industry Group shipping generating two-thirds of the NOx (see Table 13).^^ The approximately 
2,000 pounds per day of NOx that Phase I of the project as a whole would generate would be about 
0.2 percent of the total NOx generated throughout the Bay Area Air Basin in 2003. Ships, trains, and 
other off-road mobile sources are estimated to generate approximately 172,000 pounds per day of NOx 
throughout the region in 2003, and the project's ship and rail emissions would represent an increase over 
that projected amount of less than 1.2 percent. 

Emissions of all three pollutants generated by trucks from the Industry Group components in 2003 would 
decrease, compared to existing conditions, because of the shift in means of transport from trucks to ships 
and rail for much of the raw material used in the production of ready-mix concrete. Truck trips related to 
non-Industry Group Port activity would generate most of the rest of the NOx- By 2015 (see Table 1 1 and 
Tables 14 and 15), emissions would increase based on the increase in concrete and asphalt production 
and the corresponding increase in truck traffic, as well as the increase in cargo shipping at the Port. 
Some of the increase in vehicle emissions would be offset by improved emissions control technology 
that would be implemented over time under existing regulations. 

The impacts of the estimated increases in daily and annual region emissions would affect the entire Bay 
Area airshed. The emissions would be dispersed over a large area, as this regional analysis takes into 
account many activities that would occur over a broad expanse of the region (e.g., ships traveling from 
outside the Golden Gate and truck travel to and from various parts of the region). The local analysis that 
follows focuses on effects in the immediate vicinity of the Southern Waterfront. 

Local Air Quality Analysis 
Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 

In addition to the regional contribution to the total pollution burden, project-related traffic may result in 
localized "hot spots" or areas with high concentrations of carbon monoxide concentrations around 
stagnation points such as major intersections and heavily traveled and congested highways and 
roadways. Project-related traffic could add more cars and trucks, as well as cause existing non-project 
traffic to travel at slower, less pollution-efficient travel speeds. 

To evaluate "hot spot" potential, a microscale impact analysis was conducted adjacent to four 
representative intersections within the project area. It was assumed that if the relatively higher volumes 
of project-generated traffic at these intersections did not result in adverse impacts, impacts at other 
nearby intersections would experience similar or less substantial effects. For this analysis, local carbon 
monoxide concentrations were estimated using a protocol developed at U.C. Davis for analyzing project- 
level effects associated with transportation projects (Institute of Transportation Studies. 1997) and using 
the results of the traffic study prepared for this report. The estimates are shown in Table 16. 



The daily volumes do not directly translate to annual volumes by a common factor because, for purposes of a conservanvc 
analysis, daily volumes assume a minimum of one ship call per day for those project components that w ould mcludc 
shipping even when the annual total of ship calls averaged over the year is substantially less than one per day 



Case No. 1999.377E 



89 

ESA 990267 



Souihent Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVreONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - IMPACTS 



TABLE 16 

ESTIMATED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS AT SELECTED 
INTERSECTIONS IN PROJECT VICINITY 

Concentrations (ppm)^ 



Averaging Existing + Existing + 2015 + 

Time Industry Phase I + Project 

Intersection (hours) Existing Group Bridge (Phase I & II) 



Third / Mariposa Streets 
AM Peak Hour 



10.9 
6.8 



11.7 
7.4 



11.7 
7.4 



4.6 
2.5 



Third / Cesar Chavez Streets 
AM Peak Hour 



6.4 
3.6 



6.2 
3.6 



5.9 
3.3 



5.2 
2.9 



Illinois / Cesar Chavez Streets 
AM Peak Hour 



5.6 
3.0 



5.6 
2.7 



10.8 
6.7 



8.7 
5.4 



Third Street / Evans Avenue 
AM Peak Hour 



9.7 
5.9 



8.5 
5.2 



7.8 
4.7 



9.0 
5.6 



^ Concentrations relate to a location 10 meters from the edge of the roadways that form the intersection. The carbon monoxide 
analysis focuses on the morning (a.m.) peak-hour because the project's effects on traffic congestion and related carbon 
monoxide concentrations are greater during that period than during the afternoon (p.m.) peak hour. The UC Davis 
Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (Revised December 1997) was used to develop these estimates 
based on a.m. peak-hour traffic volumes prepared for this report. Carbon monoxide estimates showoi above include 
background concentrations of 4.5 ppm, one-hour average, and 2.3 ppm, eight-hour average for existing; 4.0 ppm, one-hour 
average and 2.0 ppm, eight-hour average for 2003; and 3.4 ppm, one-hour average and 1.7 ppm, eight-hour average for 2015. 

NOTE: The state one-hour average standard is 20 ppm; the state eight-hour average standard is 9 ppm. 

SOURCE: Envu-onmental Science Associates. 



The U.C. Davis carbon monoxide protocol involves a screening-level analysis, which serves to identify 
which intersections under which scenarios require further, more refined, analysis. With respect to the 
four intersections evaluated for this analysis, the screening-level analysis was sufficient to demonstrate 
the no exceedances would occur in the vicinities of the intersections of Illinois Street / Cesar Chavez 
Street and Third Street / Evans Avenue. For the intersection at Third Street / Mariposa Street, the 
screening level analysis indicated the potential for an exceedance in 2015, but the more refined analysis 
indicated that no exceedance would occur. At Third Street / Cesar Chavez Street, the refined method 
was used for both 2003 and 2015 to show that no exceedances would occur. In general, the increase in 
carbon monoxide concentrations that would normally be associated with projected increases in traffic 
volumes and associated congestion would be offset by the continued turnover of motor vehicles with 
newer vehicles manufactured to meet increasingly stringent emissions standards set by federal and state 
agencies and the shift in transport of heavy freight from trucks to ships and rail. In summary, based on 
the modeled concentrations shown in Table 16, the project would not result in exceedances of carbon 



Case No. 1999.377E 90 Southern Waterfront SEIR 

ESA 990267 
• a 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

C. AIR QUALITY - IMPACTS 

monoxide standards, and therefore, the effect of the project on local carbon monoxide standards would 
be less than significant. 

Project Incremental PM-10 Concentrations 

To examine the potential health effects of localized emissions of particulate matter, including PM-10 and 
diesel particulate, dispersion modeling was conducted to determine whether the local concentration of 
such particulates would be markedly increased in the Bay view-Hunters Point neighborhood as a result of 
emissions due to the project. Particulates were selected for dispersion modeling because of their 
potential adverse effects on respiratory health. The sensitive receptors selected include several schools 
and parks nearest the project area, in Bay view/Hunters Point and on Potrero Hill. These sites were 
chosen because children tend to be more susceptible than healthy adults to certain effects of air pollution. 
Also, the school sites are representative of the exposure locations of the surrounding residential 
neighborhood. Figure 7 shows the receptor sites selected for analysis. 

Emissions that could affect PM-10 and diesel particulate were estimated for the project's stationary 
sources and for mobile sources serving the project's facilities up to 1.5 miles from the project site (see 
Appendix D for additional information). In estimating particulate emissions from stationary sources, the 
analysis took into account air pollution controls required by existing regulations. Each of the Industry 
Group project components, which would represent "stationary sources" of particulate emissions, is 
proposed to include "best available control technology" (BACT) to control emissions, consistent with 
current regulations. For aggregate-handling operations (Bode Gravel, Mission Valley Rock, RMC 
Pacific, British Pacific Aggregates), this includes maintaining a moisture content in the aggregate that is 
high enough to eliminate PM-10 "fugitive" emissions (wind-blown dust that could otherwise escape into 
the surrounding air). A water spray system would be installed at each aggregate-handling facility, 
including Bode Gravel, Mission Valley Rock, RMC Pacific, and British Pacific Aggregates. Fine 
aggregate material (sand) would be maintained with a moisture content of approximately 5 percent, 
because such material with a moisture content of 4.5 percent or more produces virtually no fugitive 
emissions. Coarse aggregate (gravel) would be kept damp on the surface, which would also virtually 
eliminate fugitive dust. Aggregate would be stored in bunkers, rather than open piles, with water spray 
(including the use of surfactants, as necessary, to bind the water and dust to the aggregate) applied to 
maintain adequate moisture content to control emissions. ISG Resources, which would store fl> ash - a 
finer, more powdery material than aggregate - in former grain silos, would install BACT dust collection 
equipment to accommodate truck and rail transport and would use pneimiatic equipment for transfer of 
fly ash. 

The asphalt plant proposed by Mission Valley Rock (and potentially the British Pacific asphalt plant) 
would include controls on the drum mixer where the asphalt cement and aggregate are mixed. Drum 
mixer(s) would be fired with natural gas, consistent with BACT recommendations, and particulate 
emissions from the aggregate drying and mixing process would be controlled with a fabric filter, also 
consistent with BACT. Such filters can achieve control efficiency of greater than 99 percent. Emissions 



Case No. 1999. 377 E 



91 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 




1999.377E: Southern Waterfront SEIR (ESA 990267) 

SOURCE; Environmental Science Associates, Pittman & Haines Associates. 



Figure 7 

Sensitive Receptors 



92 



m. ENVreONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

C. AIR QUALITY - LMP ACTS 

of toxic substances from the asphalt plant would include mostly benzene and formaldehyde which would 
volatilize when the asphalt cement is heated. Most of these emissions would occur at the drum 
mixer/dryer. Using emission factors recently reported by U.S. EPA for hot mix asphalt plants (U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000) in the dispersion modeling analysis, the maximum 
carcinogenic risk at sensitive receptors was estimated to be 0.3 in a million. 

Table 17 provides the results of the PM-10 modeling for the years 2003 and 2015. The table shows that 
the maximum incremental contribution to 24-hour PM-10 concentrations for local stationary and mobile 
source emissions at any given receptor would be 1.2 micrograms per cubic meter in 2003 and 
1.6 micrograms per cubic meter in 2015. In both cases, these maximums would be well below the 
significance standard of 5.0 micrograms per cubic meter, and would be registered at Youngblood 
Coleman Playground, on Hudson Avenue at Mendell Street, which is the closest sensitive receptor 
downwind from the concentration of proposed Industry Group components along Islais Creek. This 
playground is located adjacent to the residential area on the hill overlooking Hunters Point shipyard. The 
PM-10 concentrations at all other receptors modeled (see Figure 7) would be lower than these values. 

Based on meteorological conditions (see Figure 6, p. 65), the maximum 24-hour concentration at 
Youngblood Coleman Playground would occur on fewer than 25 days per year, when winds are blowing 
from a north direction. Wind measurements in the area indicate that winds in the directions that would 
result in these conditions are infrequent, with winds from the north direction occurring about 7 percent of 
the time. Winds from the south/southeast occurring from 3 percent to 5 percent of the time, and \\ ould 
affect receptors to the northwest of the project area, but at lower maximum 24-hour concentrations than 
shown in Table 17. Winds in the project area are usually from the southwest through northwest, 
occurring about 65 percent of the time. For these westerly wind directions, pollutant emissions from the 
project would be transported out over the Bay. 

For the maximum aimual average PM-10 concentrations. Table 17 shows that the maximum 
concentrations in 2003 would be 0.09 micrograms per cubic meter, while in 2015, the maximum 
concentration would be 0.12 micrograms per cubic meter. As with the 24-hour concentrations, these 
highest annual averages would be well below the significance standard of 1.0 microgram per cubic 
meter, and would be at Youngblood Coleman Playground. 

As stated in the discussion of significance criteria, the significance threshold used in this SEIR for 
PM-10 concentrations is 5.0 micrograms per cubic meter for a 24-hour average concentration, and 
1.0 microgram per cubic meter for an annual average concentration. These standards are based on 
BAAQMD's New Source Review procedures for new or modified stationary sources (BAAQMD 
Regulation 2-2-233). Because the maximum PM-10 concentration from local project-related stationan 
and mobile sources would be less than the significance criteria for both the 24-hour and annual averages, 
the project impact on local PM-10 concentrations would be less than significant. 



Case No. 1 999.377 E 



93 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - IMPACTS 



TABLE 17 

MAXIMUM PM-10 CONCENTRATIONS AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS 



24-hr. PM-10 



Significance threshold 



Annual PM-10 

3 

concentration (jig/m ) 



Significance threshold 



Year concentration (|ig/m ) 





2003 
2015 



1.2 
1.6 



5.0 
5.0 



0.09 
0.12 



1.0 
1.0 



Source: Environmental Science Associates. 



Diesel Particulate Concentrations 

To calculate the incremental cancer risk from project-related diesel particulate emissions, diesel 
particulate concentrations were modeled separately. Table 18 summarizes the modeling results with 
regard to diesel emissions. The table shows that, in 2003, the maximum incremental risk of cancer from 
diesel particulate emissions resulting from the project is estimated to be 7.5 in 1 million (7.5 additional 
cancer cases per million persons, beyond the risk from other sources), based on 24-hours per day 
exposure over a period of 70 years. In 2015, the project's cancer risk from diesel particulate would be 
9.0 in 1 million. To put these values in perspective, as stated in the setting, the BAAQMD estimates that 
the incremental cancer risk from exposure to current ambient levels of toxic air contaminants - excluding 
diesel particulate matter - is 199 in a million, and the California Air Resources Board estimates the 
statewide cancer risk due to essentially all toxic air contaminants at 758 in 1 million, of which 540 in 
1 million, or about 70 percent, is estimated to be due to diesel particulate. 

As noted in the Setting, the analyses in this report do not assume implementation of any of the proposed 
rules or regulations regarding diesel emissions. Implementation of some or all of these proposals would 
reduce the cancer risk from diesel particulate to less than described here. 

As stated in the discussion of significance criteria, the significance threshold used in this SEIR for diesel 
particulate concentrations is 10 in 1 million (10 additional cancer cases per million persons, or a 1 in 
100,000 chance of a single individual developing cancer, beyond the pre-existing risk), based on the 
BAAQMD permitting procedure for stationary sources. Because the maximum cancer risk would be less 
than the significance criterion, the project impact relative to diesel particulate concentrations would be 
less than significant. 

Odorous Emissions 

The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provides buffer distances that can be used to identify areas where 
significant impacts from proposed odor sources, such as an asphalt batch plant, could occur. Generally, 
odor impacts at sensitive receptor locations beyond the identified buffer distances can be presumed to be 
less than significant without further analysis. For sensitive receptors located within the buffer distances. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



94 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - DvIPACTS 



TABLE 18 

MAXIMUM DIESEL PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS AND 
RISK AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS 



Annual concentration 



Year 




Incremental risk 



Significance Threshold 



2003 
2015 



0.025 
0.030 



7.5 in a million 
9.0 in a million 



10 in a million 
10 in a million 



SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates. 



a more detailed odor impact analysis is generally warranted. For an asphalt batch plant, the BAAQMD- 
recommended buffer distance is 1 mile. 

The asphalt plant that could be constructed and operated between the Port and Mission Valley Rock 
would be a potential source of odors and odor complaints. Emissions of volatile organic substances, 
including toxic and odorous substances, can occur from heated asphalt cement that is used in production 
of asphalt concrete. Such emissions usually emanate from the drum mixer, where the asphalt cement is 
mixed with aggregate to create asphalt concrete. Mission Valley Rock proposes to use a counter-flow 
type drum mixer, which prevents direct contact between the material being mixed and the hot exhaust 
gases in the dryer. Consequently, the temperature pf the asphalt mix would be reduced, compared to 
other mixers, and vapor emissions, some of which are odorous, would be minimized. 

Residential areas are located within one mile of the potential asphalt plant site, generally to the south and 
to the northwest. The closest residences are located approximately one-half mile south of the potential 
asphalt plant site in the residential area that is south of Fairfax Avenue in the Bay view-Hunters Point 
neighborhood. Other, more distant, residences are located to the southwest and southeast. Odors ma\ be 
perceived at these residences when the plant would be operating during periods when stagnant 
atmospheric conditions (i.e., little vertical air movement and low wind speeds) would coincide with 
winds blowing in their general direction. However, the confluence of these three factors (plant 
operation, stagnant atmosphere, and worst-case winds) would be rare since the plant would not normally 
operate during nighttime hours when stagnant conditions more frequently occur; high (near-ground- 
level) atmospheric stability rarely occurs during daytime hours when the plant would normally be in 
operation; and winds blowing in the direction of these residences occur only about IS percent of the time 
(based on the data shown in Figure 6). Thus, although the buffer distance between the proposed plant 
site and the nearest residential areas would not be ideal, the distance would be substantial, and 
operational and meteorological factors would tend to diminish the potential impact. 

The buffer between the proposed plant site and the nearest residential areas to the northwest would be 
about three-quarters of a mile. Winds in the direction of these residences occur about 9 percent of the 



Case No. 1999 377 E 



95 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING A>fD IMPACTS 



C. AIR QUALITY - IMPACTS 



time (based on Figure 6 in the setting section). Thus, like the residences to the south, although the buffer 
distance between the proposed plant site and the nearest residential areas would not be ideal, operational 
and meteorological factors would tend to diminish the potential impact. 

In summary, the proposed asphalt plant could raise the potential for odor impacts and complaints, but the 
related impact would not be significant because the plant would be designed to minimize volatile 
emissions (including odorous emissions) and because favorable operational and meteorological factors 
would serve to diminish the possibility for annoying odors when most residents are home. In addition, as 
discussed in the setting section, the BAAQMD's Rules and Regulations provide a regulatory mechanism 
to remedy odor complaints in the unlikely event that they would become frequent. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, because the project would exceed the regional 
significance criteria of 80 pounds per day and 15 tons per year for both ROG and NO^ (and for PM-10 on 
a daily basis), it would also result in a significant cumulative effect. It should be noted, however, that the 
project-specific significant and cumulative effects are largely a construct of the BAAQMD's analysis 
methodology, which are geared more to a single development project, rather than a series of project 
components analyzed together, as in this SEIR. This finding of significant effect with respect to air 
quality does not necessarily mean that emissions, when modeled at the local level, will exceed state or 
federal standards. 

For carbon monoxide, the dispersion modeling results presented in Table 16 characterize cumulative 
conditions because a background concentration is inherent in the analysis and because backgroimd traffic 
volumes were included in the transportation analysis on which the carbon monoxide analysis was based. 
Neither project-specific nor cumulative carbon monoxide concentrations experienced locally would be 
significant. 

For localized PM-10 and diesel particulate, it is more difficult to quantify a cumulative concentration 
from this project along with other past, present, and future sources because of the large number of 
potential sources and their different locations. Locally measured PM-10 concentrations (from the 
BAAQMD's Arkansas and Ellis Street stations) show exceedances of the state standard. Local diesel 
particulate emissions data are not available. PM-10 modeling for the project analyzed in this SEIR 
would not result in PM-10 concentrations exceeding the 5.0 milligrams per cubic meter daily standard or 
the 1.0 milligrams per cubic meter annual significance criteria, and modeling of cancer risk from project- 
generated diesel particulate would not exceed the standard of 10 in 1 million. Locally, emissions from 
project sources, including both stationary and mobile sources, would be combined with emissions from 
other sources, primarily including area traffic (local streets and freeways), as well as large stationary 
sources such as the Potrero and Hunters Point power plants. These cumulative concentrations caimot be 
easily quantified, given the array of sources in the existing environment, and are therefore considered 



Case No. 1999.377E 96 Southern Waterfront SEIR 

ESA 990267 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

C. AIR QUALITY - IMPACTS 

significant. Local concentrations of pollutants would continue to be affected by activity levels in the 
area, by climate conditions, and by improvements in technology and fuel formulae. 

A major cumulative project that may occur in the area is a proposal to expand the electrical power output 
of Southern Energy's Potrero power plant. A modeling analysis reported in the Application for 
Certification submitted to the California Energy Commission indicates that the maximum 24-hour 
average PM-10 increment would be about 1.0 microgram per cubic meter. This maximum increment, 
combined with the PM-10 increment from the project, would be below the significance threshold of 
5.0 micrograms per cubic meter. Furthermore, if the Potrero plant expansion is approved, it is expected 
that the existing Hunters Point power plant, on Evans Avenue at Hunters Point Expressway, would be 
closed, under an agreement between PG&E, the operator of the Hunters Point plant, and the City. 
Closure of the Hunters Point power plant would result in a decrease in emissions of both criteria 
pollutants and toxic air contaminants in the immediate vicinity of the residential area overlooking 
Hunters Point Shipyard. 

Cumulative air quality effects are typically discussed in terms of a project's consistency with the most 
recent Clean Air Plan (i.e., the '97 Clean Air Plan). Consistency with the plan is evaluated with 
reference to the population and employment assumptions used for the plan and with reference to 
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs). (The project would have essentially no growth-inducing 
effect, and thus, the project would be consistent with the population and employment assumptions in the 
plan.) The '97 Clean Air Plan identifies a list of Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) that are to be 
implemented by local governments. These TCMs include support for voluntary employer-based trip 
reduction programs; improvement of bicycle access and facilities; improvement of arterial traffic 
management; development of local clean air plans, policies, and programs; implementation of 
demonstration projects; and promotion of pedestrian travel and traffic calming measures (Bay Area Air 
Quality Management District, 1999a) The City and County of San Francisco administers programs that 
implement all of these TCMs, and, while Phase I of the project, by its nature, does not further any of the 
TCMs in particular, none of the project components would interfere with their implementation, and thus 
the project would not be inconsistent with the '97 Clean Air Plan. TCMs could be implemented as part 
of Phase II of the project, which would include development of more typical urban land uses. 

In summary, the project would result in a cumulative significant regional impact on air quality, in that 
daily volumes of the three criteria air pollutants of most concern - reactive organic gases (ROG). 
nitrogen dioxide (NO^), and respirable particulates (PM-10) - would exceed Bay Area Air Quality 
Management District (and SEIR) significance thresholds, and annual emissions of ROG and NO^ would 
also exceed annual thresholds. Cumulative concentrations of PM-10 and diesel particulate experienced 
locally, while unknown because of the wide array of sources in the existing environment, could exceed 
significance thresholds. Even though the project would not exceed new source criteria for PM- 10 or the 
10 in 1 million risk level for particulates from diesel emissions, the project would add some increment to 
existing local PM-10 and diesel emissions. Monitoring date from the nearest monitoring stations 
indicates some exceedances of the state PM-10 standard. Therefore, to be conserv ative, these emissions 



Case No. 1999.377E 



97 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONME^^^AL setting and impacts 

C. AIR QUALITY - IMPACTS 

are deemed cumulatively significant, although the project itself would not have a significant effect with 
regard to local concentrations of PM-10 or diesel particulate. 



REFERENCES - Air Quality 

Aragon, Tomas, MD, MPH (San Francisco Department of Public Health), and Kevin Gnimbach, MD 
(University of California at San Francisco), "Community Health Profile: Bayview-Hunters Point 
Health & Environmental Assessment Project. Summary of Preliminary Results from Community 
Health Profiles Research," Draft, July 19, 1997. 

Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission, Proposed Final San Francisco Bay Area Redesignation Request and 
Maintenance Plan for the National Ozone Standard, July 1994a. 

Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission, Proposed Final San Francisco Bay Area Redesignation Request and 
Maintenance Plan for the National Carbon Monoxide Standard, July 1994b. 

Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Metropolitan 
Transportation Commission, Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard, 
1999. 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area '97 Clean Air Plan, December 1997. 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality 
Impacts of Projects and Plans, revised December 1999a. 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Toxic Air Contaminant Control Program, Annual Report 
1998, December 1999b. 

California Air Resources Board, Proposed Amendments to Heavy-Duty Vehicle Regulations: 2004 
Emission Standards; Averaging, Banking and Trading; Optional Reduce Emission Standards; 
Certification Test Fuel; Labeling; Maintenance Requirements and Warranties, Staff Report: Initial 
Statement of Reasons, March 1998a. 

California Air Resources Board, Report to the Air Resources Board on the Proposed Identification of 
Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant, Part A, Exposure Assessment, as approved by the 
Scientific Review Panel, April 22, 1998b. 

California Air Resources Board, The Toxic Air Contaminant Identification Process: Toxic Air 
Contaminant Emissions from Diesel-fueled Engines, Fact Sheet, October 1998c. 

California Air Resources Board, Proposed Amendment to the Area Designations for State Ambient Air 
Quality Standards and Proposed Maps of the Area Designations for the State and National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards, October 1999. 

California Air Resources Board, 2000 California Particulate Matter Monitoring Network Description, 
2000. 

California Air Resources Board, Proposed Risk Reduction Plan for Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, 
Public Draft, July 28, 2000a. 



Case No. 1999.377E 98 Southern Waterfront SEIR 

ESA 990267 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

C. AIR QUALITY - IMPACTS 

California Air Resources Board, Quarterly Report to the California Legislature on the Air Resources 
Board's Fine Particulate Matter Program, First Quarter 2000b. 

Environmental Science Associates, Pacific Gas & Electric Company's Application for Authorization to 
Sell Certain Generating Plants and Related Assets, Draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared 
for the California Public Utilities Commission, August 1998. 

Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, Transportation Project-Level Carbon 
Monoxide Protocol, December 1997. 

U.S. Enviroiunental Protection Agency, Emissions Standards for Locomotives and Locomotive Engines; 
Final Rule, Federal Register, April 16, 1998. 

U.S. Enviroimiental Protection Agency, Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from New Marine 

Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 37 kW; Final Rule, Federal Register, December 29, 
1999. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hot Mix Asphalt Plants Emission Assessment Report, Draft 
Report, June 2000. 

D. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 

SETTING 

WATER FEATURES AND DRAINAGE 

The project site is located along the shoreline directly adjacent to San Francisco Bay. Major water 
features include: Central Basin, an inlet to the Bay on the north side of the project area; Islais Creek 
Channel, which runs through the center of the project area; and India Basin, located on the south side of 
the project area. Average annual precipitation is about 21 inches. 

As stated in the Waterfront Plan FEIR, Islais Creek is a tidal inlet between Pier 80 and Pier 90. 
Historically, Islais Creek was the confluence of several small creeks (one of which is still extant in Glen 
Canyon) that carried runoff from the southeastern portion of San Francisco and entered the Bay just west 
of the western end of the existing tidal inlet. Urban development and alterations to the drainage system 
resulted in culverting of Islais Creek and channeling most of the stream flow from Islais Creek into the 
City's combined sewer and stormwater system. Currently, surface inflow to Islais Creek occurs during 
the rainy season through an outfall and two overflow points from the combined sewer and stormwater 
system along the creek channel as well as direct stormwater runoff from areas adjacent to the creek. The 
creek channel is approximately 4,800 feet long and varies in width from 325 feet at the western end to 
650 feet at the eastern end. The average depth is about 25 feet. 

Freshwater flow to the Bay from San Francisco has almost entirely been diverted to the City's combined 
sewer and stormwater system. Nearly all of the City drains to the combined sewer system, although 
some piers and adjacent areas along the waterfront drain directly to the Bay. These piers and waterfront 
sites drain either through isolated storm drain systems or by sheet flow to the Bay. Nearly all of the 



Case No. 1999377E 



99 

ESA 990267 



Soinhcni Walcrfronl SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



D. HYDROLOGY - SETTING 

Southern Waterfront project area drains directly to the Bay rather than to the combined sewer system, 
except for some sites along Illinois Street, such as the proposed Waste Resource Technologies site at Pier 
70, that drain to the combined sewer system. Currently, the portion of the Bay adjacent to the project 
area receives surface inflow from stormwater runoff from the piers and waterfront sites as well as from 
treated wastewater discharges and combined sewer overflows, as discussed below. 

WASTEWATER DISCHARGES AND OVERFLOWS 

The City is almost entirely served by a combined sewerage system, which collects and transports both 
sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff in the same set of pipes. Most natural drainage and stream flow 
in the City is also diverted to the combined sewer system. Flows to the combined sewer system along 
the east side of the City are transported to the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant, on Phelps Street, 
about one-half mile southwest of Islais Creek, for treatment and then discharged to the Bay. During dry 
weather, all wastewater flows, consisting mainly of municipal and industiial wastewater, are treated to a 
secondary levep6 at the Southeast Plant and discharged through the deep water Pier 80 Outfall, located in 
the Bay east of Pier 80 (east of the project area). During wet weather, the combined sewerage system 
collects large volumes of stormwater runoff in addition to municipal and industrial wastewater, and 
transports the combined flow to treatment facilities before eventual discharge to the Bay. Wet weather 
discharges occur through the Pier 80 Outfall or the Quint Street Outfall (in the project area on the south 
bank of Islais Creek one block west of the Third Street bridge). During periods of extreme wet weather, 
combined sewer overflows also occur at overflow control structures located along the waterfront. Two 
overflow points are located in the project area at the western head end of Islais Creek, where combined 
sewer overflows occur on average about ten times per year. For the discharges through the overflow 
structures, the combined sewage and runoff undergo primary treatment prior to discharge to the Bay; this 
consists of flow-through treatment to remove settleable solids and floatable materials. All discharges 
from the combined sewer system to the Bay, through either the outfalls or the overflow structures, are 
operated in compliance with permits from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board 
(California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1994). 

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, which includes the Clean Water Program - the City's 
wastewater treatment agency - has undertaken an examination of cumulative effects of increased 
development on the City's east side relative to the potential to increase the volume of discharges to 
San Francisco Bay through the overflow structures. The PUC's 1998 "Bayside Study" evaluated several 
scenarios, beginning with a "base case" that included completion of Pacific Bell Park, then under 
construction, as well as the PUC's Suimydale flood control project. Under the base case, which 
essentially represents existing conditions, the PUC estimated that a total of 31.1 million gallons per year 
of stormwater and wastewater enter the Bayside portion of the city's combined sewer system - 
essentially the eastern 60 percent of the City. Of this amount, about 910 million gallons per year is 



Secondary Treatment involves from wastewater or sewage of organic matter using biological and chemical processes. This 
is a higher level of treatment than primary treatment, which is removal of floating and settleable solids using physical 
operations such as screening and sedimentation. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



100 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

D. HYDROLOGY - SETTING 



estimated to flow treated to the Bay in combined sewer overflows, representing about 2.9 percent of the 
total flow. 

BENEFICIAL USES 

The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan) identifies the following 
existing beneficial uses for the San Francisco Bay, Central and Lower portions: ocean, commercial and 
sport fishing; estuarine habitat; industrial service supply; fish migration; navigation; preservation of rare 
and endangered species; water contact recreation; non-contact water recreation; shellfish harvesting; and 
wildlife habitat. Central San Francisco Bay also is identified as having industrial process supply and fish 
spawning as existing beneficial uses. No "potential" beneficial uses are identified for these waters 
(California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1995). 

Along the project area between Piers 70 and 96, the predominant water-dependent uses are cargo 
shipping, ship repair and maritime support. Between Piers 72 and 80, Warm Water Cove Park is a public 
open space used primarily for picnicking and viewing bay vistas. On infrequent occasions, sport fishing, 
water contact recreation and non-contact water recreation opportunities are also observed, but are 
dependent upon water quality conditions and tidal water levels. Islais Creek is used for small-vessel 
boating and other non-contact water recreation. At the mouth of Islais Creek on the south side, there is 
an existing wetland area where wildlife habitat is dependent upon water quality conditions. There are 
also wetlands (a tidal marsh) at Pier 98 (Heron's Head Park). 

WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS 

As described in the Waterfront Land Use Plan FEIR, water quality data for the Bay specific to the project 
area are sparse. Water quality conditions in the overall vicinity of the project area are best characterized 
by data collected for Central San Francisco Bay as part of the Regional Monitoring Program for the 
San Francisco Estuary by the San Francisco Estuary Institute (San Francisco Estuary Institute. 1997). 
Data from this on-going study, started in 1993, have indicated that in general, the Central Bay has the 
highest water quality in the estuary, probably due to the regular tidal flushing in this area. At the Verba 
Buena Island sampling station, the closest sampling station to the project area, the most recent 
monitoring data available for 1996 indicate that water quality conditions remain well within water 
quality objectives established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for conventional water 
quality parameters and all trace elements.^'' The 1996 data show lower levels for nearly all trace 
elements than the 1993 levels that were presented in the Waterfront Land Use Plan FEIR. 

In 1999, the Regional Water Quality Control Board listed the western portion of Islais Creek (west of 
Third Street) as a Toxic Hot Spot (California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1999) because of 
sediment toxicity (sediments from Islais Creek were found in tests to cause mortality of sea urchin lar\ ac 
and amphipods, a small crustacean); elevated concentrations of chemicals (including the pesticides 



•^^ Trace elements include silver, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, lead, selenium, and zinc. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



101 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND EMPACTS 

D. HYDROLOGY - SETTING 

chlordane and dieldrin, PCBs, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and metals including lead, mercury, 
and silver, among other constituents); and an impacted benthic community (low numbers of, and lack of 
diversity in, bottom-dwelling organisms). The City's Public Utilities Commission staff disagrees with 
the conclusions reached by the Regional Board and is currently engaged with the Board in further data 
collection and analysis activities related to sediment in Islais Creek (Lundgren, 2000). 

San Francisco Bay is also listed by the State Water Resources Control Board as an "impaired" water 
body, under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, because of the presence of numerous 
pollutants, including high-priority substances such as copper, dioxin compounds, mercury, PCBs, Furan 
compounds, and nickel, as well as many other chemicals. Also listed as a high-priority "stressor" of the 
Bay's water quality are exotic species such as clams that have been introduced to the Bay in ship ballast 
water. 

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 
Water Quality Regulation 

The federal Clean Water Act of 1972 and subsequent amendments, under the enforcement authority of 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), established the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) program to protect water quality of receiving waters. Under the Clean 
Water Act, discharge of pollutants to receiving waters is prohibited unless the discharge is in compliance 
with an NPDES permit. Discharge of municipal and industrial wastewater as well as stormwater runoff 
is regulated under NPDES permit requirements. The regulations initially focused on municipal and 
industrial wastewater discharges in 1972, followed by stormwater discharge regulations, which became 
effective in November 1990. The NPDES permit specifies discharge prohibitions, effluent limitations 
and other provisions (such as monitoring programs) deemed necessary to protect water quality. In 
California, the U.S. EPA has delegated the implementation and enforcement of the NPDES program to 
the State Water Resources Control Board and the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Boards. 

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Division 7 of the Califomia Water Code) regulates 
water quality within California and established the authority of the State Water Resources Control Board 
and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The San Francisco Bay waters are under the 
jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), San Francisco Bay Region. The 
RWQCB established regulatory standards and objectives for water quality in the Bay in the Water 
Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin, commonly referred to as the "Basin Plan" 
(Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1995). The Basin Plan identifies existing and 
potential beneficial uses (described above) and provides numerical and narrative water quality objectives 
designed to protect those uses. The RWQCB considers the beneficial uses of receiving water in 
establishing NPDES permit requirements in the San Francisco Bay region. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



102 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

D. HYDROLOGY - SETTING 

City NPDES Permits 

The City currently holds two NPDES permits from the RWQCB for discharges to the Bay in the project 
area. The first permit is for the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant for discharges of treated 
wastewater through the Pier 80 and Quint Street outfalls. The second permit is for the Bayside wet 
weather facilities, which includes the discharges from the combined sewer overflow structures in Islais 
Creek. 

The City and County of San Francisco is currently exempt from the federal stormwater regulations under 
the NPDES program because it has a combined sewer system. Discharge of nearly all stormwater runoff 
from the City is covered under its existing NPDES permits, and the City is not required to have a 
separate municipal stormwater discharge permit. However, current federal proposals indicate that the 
City may be required to apply for a general stormwater permit that would require the City to develop and 
implement a stormwater control program in the areas that have separate storm sewers, such as those 
isolated areas along the waterfront in the project area. Application for such permits is anticipated for 
approximately August 2001 (Medbery, 1997). 

Industrial Stormwater NPDES Permit 

The federal Clean Water Act includes regulations requiring that stormwater associated with industrial 
activity that discharges either directly to surface waters or indirectly through municipal separate storm 
sewers must be regulated by an NPDES permit. This requirement would apply to project facilities 
located along the waterfront that drain through isolated storm drain systems directly to the Bay. Most 
industrial facilities, such as those proposed for the Southern Waterfront area, can comply with the 
NPDES industrial stormwater requirement through the Industrial Activities Stormwater General Permit 
adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in 1997. Some industries may require an industry 
specific permit, and other may require an individual permit. The requirements for a General Permit are 
discussed below. 

In order to obtain coverage under the General Permit, facilities are required to file a Notice of Intent and 
to comply with General Permit conditions. Permit conditions include: discharge prohibitions for 
stormwater containing hazardous substances in excess of established quantities; pollutant controls using 
best available technology economically achievable, best conventional pollutant control technology, and 
best management practices; receiving water limitations; preparation and implementation of a Stormwater 
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); and preparation and implementation of a monitoring program. The 
SWPPP contains site-specific information to identify and evaluate sources of pollutants associated with 
I industrial activities and to identify and implement site-specific best management practices to reduce or 
prevent pollutants associated with industrial activities in stormwater discharges. Best management 
practices may be non-structural (e.g., activity schedules, maintenance procedures, prohibitions of 
practices) or structural (e.g., treatment measures, runoff controls, overhead coverage) (State Water 
Resources Control Board, 1997). 



Case No. 1999.377E 



103 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



D. HYDROLOGY - SETTING 



Construction Stormwater NPDES Permit 

The federal Clean Water Act effectively prohibits discharges of stormwater from construction projects 
that encompass five or more acres of soil disturbance unless the discharge is in compliance with an 
NPDES permit. The State Water Resources Control Board has adopted a statewide General Permit for 
Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity; the current 1999 General Permit updates 
the previous 1992 General Permit. Although construction activities of less than five acres are not 
covered by this permit, those activities will be required to apply for a permit under Phase II regulations 
by August 2001 (State Water Resources Control Board, 1999). The construction stormwater regulations 
would apply to the various components of the proposed project, depending on the size of the construction 
site. 

The Construction Stormwater General Permit requires that where construction activity disturbs five acres 
or more, the land owner and/or contractor develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention 
Plan (SWPPP). This plan must specify best management practices that will prevent all construction 
pollutants from contacting stormwater, with the intent of keeping all products of erosion form moving 
off site into receiving waters. The permit also requires elimination or reduction of non-stormwater 
discharges to receiving waters and inspection of all best management practices. 

In order to obtain coverage under the Construction Stormwater General Permit, land owners are required 
to file a Notice of Intent prior to starting construction activities and to comply with General Permit 
conditions. These permit conditions include: discharge prohibitions for stormwater containing 
hazardous substances in excess of established quantities; pollutant controls using best available 
technology economically achievable, best conventional pollutant control technology, and best 
management practices; eliminating or reducing non-stormwater discharges; receiving water limitations 
that require immediate corrective action; preparation and implementation of a SWPPP; and preparation, 
implementation and retaining records of a monitoring program. The SWPPP contains site-specific 
information to identify and evaluate sources of sediment and other pollutants and to identify and 
implement site-specific best management practices to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants 
in stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. The SWPPP must include measures for erosion and 
sediment controls, methods for construction waste handling and disposal, and post-construction erosion 
and sediment control requirements. Mitigation Measure D-1, p. 149, address the preparation of SWPPPs 
and would apply to the project area. 



IMPACTS 



SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

The City has not formally adopted significance standards for hydrology and water quality impacts, but it 
generally considers that implementation of the Southern Waterfront projects would have a significant 
effect on hydrology and water quality if it were to: 



Case No. 1999.377E 104 Southern Waterfront SEIR 

ESA 990267 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



D. HYDROLOGY- LMPACTS 



• substantially change absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water 
runoff to the Bay; 

• substantially degrade water quality; 

• contaminate a public water supply; 

• substantially degrade or deplete groundwater resources or interfere with groundwater recharge; or 

• cause substantial flooding, erosion, or siltation. 

Criteria for evaluating surface and groundwater quality in the San Francisco Bay Area are based on 
beneficial uses and water quality objectives established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, 
San Francisco Bay Region as authorized under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and Clean 
Water Act. Both beneficial uses and water quality objectives are described within the Basin Plan. 

Given public concerns regarding combined sewer overflows, the change in the volume of discharge from 
the City's combined sewer system is assessed along with the potential for greater volumes and numbers 
of overflow events. 

Groundwater and flooding hazards are not discussed in this section because the Southern Waterfront 
project would have no impacts on either groundwater or flooding. In general, the project components 
would require minimal (shallow) excavation, and therefore, it is unlikely that groundwater would be 
encountered, and the project area is not within an area subject to flooding. The Illinois Street bridge 
would likely attain support from driven piles, which would penetrate groundwater. However, piles or 
piers typically would not cover a large area, and therefore groundwater recharge would not be adversely 
affected. Further, groundwater from this area is not used for a potable water supply. 



IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Changes in Stormwater Runoff and Wastewater Flows 

The proposed development in the Southern Waterfront area would result in changes in the volume of 
surface water runoff from stormwater due to changes in the extent of impervious surfaces and would 
change the volume of wastewater (sewage) and stormwater discharged to the Bay from the City's 
combined sewer system. In general, replacement of unpaved areas with structures, pavement or other 
impervious surfaces would reduce the infiltration of rainwater and would increase the volume of 
stormwater runoff flowing directly from the project site to the Bay. Development of commercial and 
industrial uses would also result in increased wastewater flows to the combined sewer system. Increases 
in volume of wastewater flows and any increase in the volume of stormwater runoff that is piped to the 
City's combined sewer system could in turn affect the volume of treated effluent and combined sewer 
overflows discharged to the Bay. Increases in direct discharge of stormwater runoff, treated effluent, and 
combined sewer overflows to the Bay could affect water quality (discussed below under Operational 
Effects on Water Quality). The changes in stormwater runoff are evaluated separately for the Industry 



Case No. 1999. 377 E 



105 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



D. HYDROLOGY- IMPACTS 



Group project components and for the future Port development that would occur by the analysis horizon 
year of 2015. 

This EIR assumes that for the Industry Group Projects neither the Port nor the tenants would construct 
on-site infrastructure related to stormwater collection, and there would be no new connections to the 
combined sewer system to capture stormwater runoff, because the Industry Group components would be 
considered interim uses (with leases limited in length such that major capital investment in storm 
drainage infrastructure would not be economically feasible). Therefore site conditions with respect to 
drainage infrastructure are anticipated to remain the same as existing conditions. Site locations currently 
draining to the Bay would continue to do so, and locations currently draining to the City's combined 
sewer system would continue as well. 

Under the Industry Group projects, the total site areas for all projects would be about 32 acres. Of this 
32 acres, about 25.5 acres is currently considered to be impervious surfaces, with pavement or structures 
built on it; the remaining 6.5 acres, consisting of most of the Mission Valley Rock-Bode Gravel site at 
Pier 92, is unpaved. Table 19 shows the estimated changes in impervious surfaces for each of the 
various project components. 

The Mission Valley-Bode site would be entirely paved with asphalt or concrete, in compliance with a site 
mitigation plan prepared for the Bode site (see discussion in Section III.F, Hazardous Materials, p. 130), 
resulting in the overall Industry Group projects being completely covered with impervious surfaces. 
This would increase runoff from the Industry Group sites by about 3 percent. The increase in direct 
stormwater flow to the Bay would be approximately 1.4 million gallons per year. This can be compared 
to the approximately 47.8 million gallons per year currently discharged to the Bay as direct stormwater 
flow from the project area, and to the approximately 480 million gallons per year of treated combined 
sewer overflows currently discharged to Islais Creek (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 1998). 
(Runoff calculations are provided in Appendix E.) As discussed below under "Operational Impacts on 
Water Quality," any stormwater runoff from the proposed industrial uses would be required to comply 
with RWQCB regulations under the NPDES program and Mitigation Measure D.2, p. 149. For these 
reasons, the relatively minor increase in runoff associated with the Industry Group sites would be 
considered less than significant with mitigation. Resulting changes in water quality are discussed below. 

Future Port development would generate an estimated 300,000 gallons per day of wastewater, or dry 
weather flows. This would represent less than 0.4 percent of the current Citywide total of 84 million 
gallons per day, and less than 0.5 percent of the 67 million gallons per day currently treated at the 
Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant. The Industry Group components would generate negligible 
wastewater flow, as on-site employment would be relatively small and neither stormwater nor process 
water would be directed to the City's combined sewer system in substantial volumes. The project impact 
on dry-weather flow and the incremental impact of wastewater flow on the volume of combined sewer 
overflows would be considered less than significant. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



106 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



on 

< 

o 
o 
-1 
o 

Oi 

Q 
>- 
X 



H 
Z 

Z 

o 
a, 

o 

H 

o 

O 
H 

P 
Q 

U 
to 

Was 
o 



to 
z 

u 
to 

H 



to 



z 
o 

5 
z 
o 
u 

Q 

u 

O 
a. 
O 
a: 

Oh 



Z 

o 

5 
z 
o 
u 
ta 

CO 

o 
z 

on 
>< 
W 



u 

H 
CO 

a. 
O 

£^ 

CO 



z 
o 

u 
o 



CO 

D 

Q 

U 

00 

O 
o. 
O 
a: 



z 

2 

2 
o 

U 



H 
U 
Ed 

"-9 

o 

cu 
cu 

O 
06 
O 

>> 
06 

a 
z 



■a 

> 

CU 
U 
X3 



C 



"O o 

> rs 

^ SI 
o ^ 



> 

T3 
C 

D 



a, ^ 

(L) CO 

^ i; 

X 2 

U CL. 



o 
o 



CM 
ON 



ID 

H 

o 
c 
o 
U 



■^1 
OS ^ 



> 

o 

•a 

o 
CQ 



u 
> 

o 

X) 

2 



c 





•4^ 

3 






O 
























U 




c 






sti 


CU 






o 




'>< 


o 






o 








<D 


T3 


no 




k> 


> 




O 






cd 






vn 


c 


5 





O « 



0\ 



I 

e 

o 



3 
O 
'> 

o 

a. 

a 



60 . 
C u 

O 3 



o\ 

Urn 

« 

N ^ 

T3 
U 
> 

CS 
Ph 



O i- 

<=> y 
2 



(U 



2i c 

" CL, 

O — 

U J 

X Q. 

CO C3 

cc; 



o 

t« CO 

Oh ao 

^ ii 

.22 00 

CQ ^ 



O u 
3 

ea c« 

CA 

C 3 

es O 



X) 
3 

CO 

O 

2 



c« »n 

60 O 
3 

&0 o 



CO 



a. 

3 

y 
o 
o 



cc ^ 
O 03 



O 



4) 

O^ 



00 

ea 

Urn 

o 
x: 

CO 

< 



w 
3 

O 

CO 

u 

oi 

o 

00 



1> 

B 



60 . 

S " 

O 3 



o 
00 

•a 

u 
> 



O" 00 

o S 

CO 

r-; _ 

<^ ^ 



o 

00 

o 
Cu 

5 
c 

o 

u 



CO CO 

oi 



G 

CO 

a, 

U 

OS 



c .2 

00 ^ 

00 o u 
C 00 u 
•s c ^ 

CO t: 



00 

c 



3 

X! 
00 

c 



X 



8 « 

o 



o 



00 
T3 



« CQ 
CU ^ 



-a 
c 

CO 

c 

o 



OS 



c 
u 

E 
u 

00 
CO 

c 

CO 

s 



CO 



a. 
B 



o 

00 . 

s *^ 

CO CJ 

O 3 

Z 



ON 

-a 
> 

CO 

a. 



in 



CO 



o 2: 



NO 
ON 



u 

00 

CO 

o 
(35 

CO 

3 

QQ 



< 



3 
u 



C/2 

< 

a. 

I 

>■ 
o 
o 
J 
o 

a 
> 



H 
Z 

z 
o 

On 

o 

u 

H 

U 

1-5 

o 
o 

o 



On 

H 



o 

0H 



z 

53 

u 

Q 

< 



z 
o 

5 
z 
o 
u 

u 

H 

55 

Q 

m 

00 

O 
o. 
O 
as 
a. 



z 
o 

5 
z 
o 
u 

u 

(55 
c 
z 

>< 

m 



o 

m 

CO 



z 
o 

< 

u 
o 



C/3 

D 

Q 
u 

CO 

o 

O 

a. 



z 
u 
z 
o 

0. 

O 

u 



Z 

eu 
O 

> 

Q 
H 

O 
Cu 

H 



2 § 
•a Si '5 

> U (U 
O •— t- 

" £ " 

U TO 

^ X) 3 
o § S 
-a .2 " 

"2 c TO 
< 



T3 
> 

c 



o 

<N X 



ON 



C3 



2 o 



c« ^ 



BO 



o 

S3 C 

— m « 

« _ n 
C E «i 
" ~ c 



o o 
« si: 
E -o 



p £ i; 



o — 

T3 C 



2: n -H 



IT) i: 



3 ^ 

o c 

« g 

o u 



o 

o « 

- E 

43 3 

3 M 

-a "5 

^ TO 



> 



Oh 



d 

. o 

O" CT CP eS 

C« M M _ 
000:2 

o o o _ 
R P, R ^ 
o o o o 

— O ^ 



tt- i! 00 



c 

o 

05 O o 
u is < 

O DS CL, 



§1 



Q 



5 

4) M 

C li 

as 3 

4) S 

TO U- 

3 ^ 

o c 

X3 D 

TO g 

2 > 



4) 
> 
ea 
O. 

1 

E 



0015 

O O o 
O O 

cs cs ^ 



O 



43 



3 M 

-O 3 

C 73 

'— ' C 

4) 

E "to 

•rr 1-1 

-t; 4) 

« 4) 

So 



4> 4> 

<£ U 

TO es 

4) (4-: 

O 3 

C « 



.5 E 



4> 
> 
TO 
Q. 
C 

D 



. 4) 



— ; cN 
— < i 
i ^ 



is on ^TO 
.E 

= u u 



z. -a 
,3 c 



o 

TO 
Oh 

c 

4) 



> 4) 

U ^ 

C 3 

O 3 



E 

o « 

a. S 



> 

CO 

a 



TO 



CT M TO 



8.1" 

O = 

o* ■£ 

VD — I 

X X 



O 



4) l: 



•a 

hJ O 



C 

o 

TO 

CQ 

OS 

O 
ON 
Ui 
4) 



o 
o 
o 

(S 
U 

.2 
'o 
o 



4^ 
O 

c 
u 
'o 
CO 



c 

4> 

E 
c 

o 

'> 
c 

m 

oi 
u 
a: 

O 
CO 



o 
o 
o 
o 
o 
«o 

3 
O 

4> 

s 



S 

•a 



o 



•a 

JB 



CO 

2 

o 

'S 
s 



13 



E i 

^ i 

H a. 

00 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTPsG AND IMPACTS 



D. HYDROLOGY- IMPACTS 



The approximately 100 acres where future Port development would occur is currently about one-fourth 
paved or otherwise covered with impervious surfaces. Table 19 shows the estimated changes in 
impervious surfaces associated with the future Port development. Under worst-case assumptions, the full 
build out of these projects would result in an increase of about 60 acres of impervious surfaces. This 
would represent an estimated 60 percent increase in surface water runoff from stormwater in the area 
occupied by the future Port development sites, based on rainfall, runoff and land use assumptions 
developed for the PUC's Bay side Cumulative Impact Analysis (San Francisco Public Utilities 
Commission, 1998). The estimated increase in runoff volumes would be about 12.5 million gallons per 
year. (See Appendix E for runoff calculations.) 

The Waterfront Plan EIR assumed that storm drainage from up to 100 acres of Port land uses could be 
piped to the City's combined sewer system. This could result in a measurable increase in bayside flows, 
made up of treated effluent and combined sewer overflows. This runoff would contribute to a 
cumulative increase of approximately 44 million gallons per year in combined sewer overflows at Islais 
Creek. Even though this increase would be permitted, recent EIRs have conservatively found the 
cumulative increase in combined sewer overflows to be a significant impact.^^ Mitigation Measure D.3, 
p. 150, would reduce the project's contribution to a negligible amount by directing stormwater flow to 
the Bay with appropriate treatment to meet regulatory requirements, instead of to the City's combined 
sewer system. 

As noted in the Setting, the San Francisco PUC's Bayside Study evaluated several scenarios for future 
development along the City's Bay shoreline. Table 20 presents modeling results from the PUC stud> for 
the "base case" (existing conditions) and for future cumulative conditions, including implementation of 
both phases of the proposed project analyzed in this SEIR, as well as buildout of the Mission Bay area 
and redevelopment of Hunters Point shipyard. Table 20 also presents an interim-year analysis for 
Phase I of the project (primarily implementation of the Industry Group components). 

Water Quality 

Operations associated with long-term implementation of the proposed Industry Group projects could 
result in detrimental effects on Bay water quality. These operations include water quality impacts 
associated with stormwater runoff from proposed developments and with maritime uses, such as shipping 
and boating activities, involving handling and storage of chemicals in proximity to the Bay. 



For further discussion of cumulative stormwater overflows, the reader is referred to Section 3 .9, Water Resources Setting, 
and Section 4.9, Water Resources Impacts, in the Hunters Point Shipyard Reuse Final EIR. Case No 1994 06 IE. Fmal EIR 
certified February 8, 2000; in particular, pp. 3-132 - 3-136. which describe the City's combmcd sewer system and enisling 
conditions with regard to water quality in San Francisco Bay and the effects of combined sewer overflows, and pp 4-78 - 
4-82, which describe impacts of the Hunters Point Shipyard Reuse Plan and cumulative effects on water quality related to 
combined sewer overflows. These pages are hereby incorporated by reference. The Hunters Point Shipyard Reuse Final 
EIR is available for review at the San Francisco Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street. First Roor Planning Information 
Counter; and at the San Francisco Public Library, Main Library (Civic Center) 



Case No. 1999.377E 



109 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



D. HYDROLOGY- IMPACTS 



TABLE 20 

CHANGES IN STORMWATER FLOW AND COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS 



Bayside 





Base Case 








Cumulative including 


Project 




(Existing) 


Existing 


plus Industry Group 


(Phases I & II)' 






Volume 


Volume 


Change'' 


Pet. 


Volume 


Change'' 


Pet. 


Total Treated Effluent (mgy) 


30,203 


30,203 





N/A 


31,297 


1,094 


3.6% 


Total Bayside CSOs (mgy) 


910 


910 





N/A 


949 


39 


4.3% 


Islais Creek CSOs (mgy)'^ 


481 


481 





N/A 


525 


44 


9.2% 


Total Bayside Flow (mgy) 


31,113 


31,113 





N/A 


32,246 


1,133 


3.6% 


% receiving Secondary Treatment 


87.3% 


87.3% 





N/A 


87.4% 


0.1% 




% receiving Primary Treatment 


9.7% 


9.7% 





N/A 


9.7% 


0.0% 




Stormwater Flow to Bay from 


47.8 


49.2 


1.4 


2.9% 


49.2 


1.4 


2.9% 


Project Area (mgy)*^ 
















Stormwater Flow to Bay from 


47.8 


49.2 


1.4 


2.9% 


61.7 


13.9 


29.1% 



Project Area - Mitigated (mgy)^ 



NOTES: mgy - million gallons per year; CSOs - combined sewer system overflows. 

^ Assumes stormwater from future Port development (Phase 11 of the project analyzed in this SEIR) is directed to 
City's combined sewer system. Also assumes buildout of Mission Bay with separate stormwater system and 
"first flush"; redevelopment of Hunters Point Shipyard with separate stormwater system flowing to San Francisco 
Bay, and construction of new stadium and shopping mall at Candlestick Point (Scenario A2B2D2E2). With 
Mitigation Measure D.3, volume of combined sewer overflows would be less because all stormwater from the 
project analyzed in this SEER would flow to the Bay following pre-treatment. 

'' Change from existing conditions. 

^ Islais Creek CSO volume included in Total Bayside CSO volume. 

^ Assumes all new runoff from SEIR project area (except Industry Group sites) would be piped to City's combined 
system. 

^ Assumes all new runoff would drain to bay (after pre-treatment; see Mitigation Measure D.3). 

Source: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 1998; Orion Environmental Associates; Environmental 
Science Associates. 



Stormwater runoff from urban areas is a known source of pollutants to receiving waters. Typical sources 
of pollutants could include fluid leaks from vehicles, brake pad wear, tire abrasion, pavement wear, 
sediments, pesticides from landscaped areas, and atmospheric deposition. Both oil and grease and 
sediments can act as a carrier for other pollutants as well as representing a type of pollutant. The types 
of pollutants may include metals, hydrocarbons, and organic pollutants as well as sediments. During 
rainstorms, these pollutants may be mobilized and transported in the stormwater runoff to receiving 
waters. Sometimes the first flush of each storm contains the highest concentration of pollutants, but 
release of pollutants to stormwater depends on rainfall patterns, intensity and site-specific conditions. 
These water quality effects could occur with stormwater runoff discharging directly to the Bay, unlike 
stormwater runoff discharging to the combined sewer system, which would undergo treatment at either 



Case No. 1999.377E 1 10 Southern Waterfront SEIR 

ESA 990267 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING \ST> IMPACTS 



D. HYDROLOGY- LVIPACTS 



the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant or the overflow control structures prior to discharge to the 
Bay. 

All industrial users that would discharge stormwater runoff either directly to the Bay by sheet flow or 
through isolated storm drain systems would be required to comply with NPDES permit regulations. 
These regulations, described above in the Setting, would likely be met through the Industrial Activities 
Stormwater General Permit adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board, but could alternatively 
be met through an industry specific permit or an individual permit. The construction aggregate-related 
Industry Group project components, for which sediment in stormwater runoff would be a primary water 
quality concern, would include facilities such as settling ponds and sediment basins to ensure that neither 
stormwater as sheet flow nor process water (for example, water used to wash out cement mixers) is 
transported directly to the Bay without removal of sediment and other solids. Much of the process water 
would be reused in Industry Group operations. 

Compliance with NPDES permit conditions, including preparation and implementation of a Stormwater 
Pollution Prevention Plan, would minimize potential water quality degradation associated with 
stormwater runoff. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure D.2 (implementation of source 
control Best Management Practices consistent with those identified in the Industrial / Commercial Storm 
Water Best Management Practices Handbook) and of measures identified in the Waterfront Land Use 
Flan EIR (and also presented in Section IV of this report) for tenants to participate in the Port's 
stormwater monitoring program would further reduce the potential for Bay water quality degradation. 
Therefore, long term water quality impacts associated with stormwater nmoff from Industry Group 
project components would be considered less than significant with mitigation. 

The Port's planned location of an expanded dredge material handling facility at Pier 94 would result in 
runoff back to the Bay of decant water from dredge material placed at Pier 94. The Regional Water 
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) would require routine testing of the decant water to ensure that 
sediment levels are below accepted criteria, and that the water does not contain chemicals (e.g.. heavy 
metals) or other constituents at levels in excess of regulatory requirements.'*^ If contaminant levels were 
in excess of applicable requirements, the RWQCB would require that the Port treat the decant water prior 
to discharging it to the Bay. Treatment could involve removal of settled solids, activated charcoal 
treatment, and other methods. Operation of the dredge material storage facility in compliance with the 
required discharge permit from the RWQCB would ensure that water quality effects on the Bay would be 
less than significant. 

Because the proposed Pier 94 dredge material storage site is a former landfill that is currently under 
regulatory oversight by the RWQCB, one of two approaches would be required prior to implementation 
of the dredge material expansion project:**' either the landfill area could be capp)ed with an impermeable 



Although the decant water would be Bay water being returned to the Bay after draining from the dredge maienal. feder^ and 
state regulations preclude discharge of such water if sediment or contaminant levels arc excessively high 
The former landfill at Pier 94 is discussed further on p. 123. in Section HI E, Hazardous Matenals 



Case No. 1999.377E 



111 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND EMPACTS 

D. HYDROLOGY- IMPACTS 

barrier to prevent decant water from draining out of dredged material and into and through the former 
landfill, or the RWQCB could determine, based on additional testing and sampling that would have to be 
performed by the Port, that infiltration of seawater through the former landfill would not adversely affect 
water quality in the Bay. Because implementation of the dredge material expansion project would have 
to occur in compliance with RWQCB regulations, effects of this project component on water quality 
would be less than significant. 

The future Port development that would occur by 2015 could have similar effects to those described for 
the Industry Group project components. Potential industrial and commercial activity on currently 
unprogrammed Port lands at Pier 70 and at the 90-94 backlands would likely entail placement of large 
areas of impervious surfaces (buildings and pavement), which during dry weather accumulate pollutants 
associated primarily with industrial or urban use. The stormwater runoff associated with the increased 
area of impervious surface, if collected in the City's combined sewer system, would increase demand on 
the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant. A more detailed determination of potential impacts on wet 
weather combined sewer overflows would require review of detailed development plans, which are not 
known for any of the potential future development on Port lands. Any such future development 
proposals, which would be defined through a community planning process, would include this project- 
specific information, which would then be reviewed by the Port and other City agencies such as the 
Public Utilities Commission, for potential infrastructure improvements, and would be subject to further 
environmental review. 

Under the potential future Port development projects, about 200,000 square feet of maritime industry 
uses are proposed for the Pier 70 Maritime Reserve. As discussed in the Waterfront Plan, maritime 
industry uses may include waterbome commerce and navigation and maritime support uses such as 
equipment storage and warehousing uses. As with the Industry Group components, compliance with 
NPDES permit conditions by developers on unprogrammed Port lands would minimize potential water 
quality degradation associated with stormwater runoff. 

Program-level water quality impacts associated with maritime uses are described in detail in the 
Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR (see pp. 586-589 of the Final EIR) and are summarized briefly here. Any 
shipping or boating activity would involve handling and storage of chemicals that could be discharged to 
surface waters. Potential pollutant sources include fuels, bilge water, boat cleaning and maintenance 
materials, sewage from boats and miscellaneous debris. Maritime uses could also increase the potential 
for fuels spills to the Bay. However, as described in the Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR, there are 
numerous regulations in place to protect water quality impacts associated with maritime uses. These 
include: federal Oil Pollution Act and California Oil Spill Response Act, RWQCB and U.S. Coast Guard 
permits for discharges from ships or boats, and NPDES permits for runoff from ship and boat repair 
facilities. Compliance with these regulations would minimize the potential for water quality degradation 
associated with maritime uses. Therefore, long term water quality impacts associated with maritime uses 
would be considered less than significant with mitigation. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



112 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

D. H\T)ROLOGY- LMPACTS 

Construction Impacts 

Construction of the various project components could affect water quality due to grading and 
earthmoving activities, use of fuels and other chemicals for construction equipment, and demolition and 
construction in proximity to the Bay. 

Grading and earthmoving activities would result in exposure of soil during construction and could result 
in erosion and excess sediments carried in stormwater runoff to surface waters. In addition, construction 
activities would also likely require temporary on-site use and storage of vehicles, fuels, wastes and other 
pollutant sources; if improperly handled, these pollutants could also be transported in stormwater runoff 
to surface waters. For projects with construction sites greater than five acres, the project sponsor would 
be required to obtain coverage under the statewide General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated 
with Construction Activity described above in the Setting section. These requirements would potentially 
apply to future Port development at Pier 70 and the Piers 90-94 backlands, as well as to Industry Group 
project components including Mission Valley Rock, British Pacific Aggregates, and Coach USA, all of 
which would occupy more than five acres, although the areas to be disturbed through grading or 
excavation could be considerably smaller and none of these components would require a substantial 
volume of earthmoving. Depending on the construction schedule for the various projects, the remaining 
project components under five acres in size may also be required to comply with similar regulations, 
since it is anticipated that Phase 11 construction stormwater requirements will be in place by August 
2001. 

Compliance with these regulations and NPDES permit conditions, including development and 
implementation of a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, would minimize the potential 
for water quality degradation. The SWPPP would typically be required to indicate all pollutant sources 
within the construction area and to identify best management practices to prevent discharge of pollutants 
into stormwater. However, due to the uncertain timing of construction schedules and the Phase U 
construction stormwater requirements, a mitigation measure would require that all proposed construction 
sites under the Industry Group projects, regardless of size, prepare and implement a SWPPP, in order to 
minimize construction water quality impacts (see Mitigation Measure D-1, p. 149). Therefore, with 
compliance of NPDES General Permit requirements for sites over five acres and with implementation of 
proposed mitigation measures for sites under five acres, water quality impacts associated with 
construction activities would be considered less than significant. 

Water quality impacts associated with demolition and construction in proximity to the Bay are discussed 
in the Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR. Construction activities located on or adjacent to the Bay would 
result in increased potential for spills and for construction materials or debris to enter the Bay and affect 
water quality, particularly if construction activities occur on windy days. Implementation of 
improvement measures identified in the Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR would minimize the potential for 
these impacts and are presented in Chapter IV of this report. Thus, implementation of these measures in 
conjunction with the SWPPP under the NPDES permit requirements discussed above would reduce 
potential water quality impacts to less than significant. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



113 

ESA 990267 



Soutlu-ni Walcrfronf SE!R 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

D. HYDROLOGY- IMPACTS 

Water quality effects related to construction of the Illinois Street bridge are discussed in Section IILF, 
Biological Resources, on p. 139. 



REFERENCES - Hydrology and Water Quality 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2, Final Regional Toxic Hot Spot Cleanup 
Plan, March 1999. 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2 (RWQCB), Water Quality Control Plan for 
the San Francisco Bay Basin, 1995. 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) Permit No. CA0038610, City and County of San Francisco Bayside Wet Weather 
Facilities and NPDES Permit No CA0037664, reissuing Waste Discharge Requirements for City 
and County of San Francisco, Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant, 1994. 

Lundgren, Leslie, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, personal communication, September 11, 
2000 

Medbery, Steve, Memorandum to Todd Cockbum regarding Mission Bay Stormwater Concerns, dated 
May 23, 1997 

San Francisco Estuary Institute, Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances, 1996 Annual 
Report, 1997. 

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Clean Water Program, Bayside Cumulative Impact Analysis, 
prepared by Chris Phanartzis, Hydroconsult Engineers, and Beth Goldstein, PUC, Draft, 
February 1998. 

State Water Resources Control Board, Industrial Activities Stormwater General Permit. Available at 
www.swrcb.ca.gov/stormwtr , 1997. 

State Water Resources Control Board, 1999, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (General 
Permit). Available at www.swrcb.ca.gov/stormwtr 



E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

SETTING 

The assessment focuses on hazardous materials that may be encountered during construction including 
hazardous materials in the soil, solid waste disposal facilities, hazardous building materials, and 
abandoned hazardous wastes. The analysis is based on information from the following: 



Case No. 1999.377E 



114 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVraONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - SETTING 

• A regulatory database search to identify known environmental cases within or adjacent to each of the 
proposed project sites (VISTA Information Solutions, 2000); 

• Review of Port of San Francisco, San Francisco Department of Public Health, and San Francisco 
Department of Public Works Reports; and 

• Visual site reconnaissance (Orion, 2000). 
REGULATORY SETTING 

Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are subject to numerous federal, state, and local laws and 
regulations intended to protect health and safety. The overall regulatory framework for hazardous 
materials is discussed in Appendix F. Three San Francisco regulations from the Public Health Code 
applicable to the Southern Waterfront projects are summarized below: "Analyzing the Soil for 
Hazardous Wastes," the Hazardous Materials Ordinance, and the Hazardous Waste Ordinance. 

Analyzing the Soil for Hazardous Wastes 

In 1986, the City and County of San Francisco first established legislation known as the Maher 
Ordinance that required the investigation of hazardous wastes in soil at construction sites as a 
prerequisite for certain building permits. These regulations have since been codified in Article 20 of the 
San Francisco Public Works Code (in 1986) and Article 22A of the San Francisco Public Health Code (in 
1999).'*2 Article 22A of the Public Health Code is applicable to projects that include the disturbance of 
more than 50 cubic yards of soil and: 

(1) are located bayward of the historic high tide line (i.e., in an area of Bay fill), as designated on an 
official City map; or 

(2) are located in other areas of the City designated for investigation by the Director of the Department 
of Public Health. These areas would include locations where the Director has reason to believe that 
hazardous wastes may be present in the soil. 

The regulations take effect at the time of the building permit application and impose the following major 
requirements on proposed developments: 

• Preparation of a site history report to describe past site uses and identify whether the site is listed as a 
hazardous waste site pursuant to state or federal regulations; 

• Implementation of a soil investigation to evaluate the potential presence of hazardous wastes in the 
soil; 

• Preparation of a soil analysis report that evaluates the results of chemical analysis of the soil 
samples; 

• Preparation of a site mitigation report, if contamination is identified, assessing potential 
environmental and health and safety risks and recommending measures to mitigate the risks; 



The requirements of both articles are similar. Only Article 22 A of the Public Health Code is referred to m subsequent 
references in this document. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



115 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVreONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - SETTING 

• Preparation of a certification report stating that either (1) no hazardous wastes present in the soil 
present an unacceptable risk and that no mitigation measures are required; or (2) all mitigation 
measures recommended in the site mitigation report have been completed and that completion of the 
mitigation measures has been verified through follow-up soil sampling and analysis, if required. 

The site history report and the soil analysis report must be prepared by knowledgeable, certified 
professionals and provide information on historic and current hazardous waste contamination at the 
property to be developed. The site history report is submitted to the San Francisco Department of Public 
Health. The soil analysis report is submitted to the San Francisco Department of Public Health, 
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the California Regional Water Quality Control 
Board, San Francisco Bay region. If the soil sampling and analysis report or the site history report 
indicate that the site proposed for development is listed on the National Priorities List or the list of 
California Hazardous Substances Account Act release sites, the applicant must certify that any site 
mitigation required by a federal or state agency has been completed. 

Article 22A protects the health and safety of the City's workers, residents, and occupants from risks 
associated with hazardous wastes in the soil by requiring a site assessment and mitigation of any risks 
identified as a condition for construction of a planned project. All of the proposed sites in the Southern 
Waterfront project are located bayward of the historic high tide line and would be subject to the 
requirements of Article 22A if construction of the project would include the disturbance of more than 
50 cubic yards of soil. 

Hazardous Materials Ordinance 

The Hazardous Materials Ordinance (Article 21 of the San Francisco Public Health Code) provides for 
safe handling of hazardous materials in the City. In accordance with this ordinance, any person or 
business that handles, sells, stores, or otherwise uses hazardous materials in quantities exceeding 
specified threshold, is required to obtain and keep a current hazardous materials certificate of registration 
and implement a hazardous materials plan submitted with the registration application. 

The Hazardous Materials Ordinance helps protect the health and safety of the general community and of 
emergency response personnel, such as fire fighters and paramedics. Data on hazardous materials use 
are stored in a City-wide computer system and can be made available to emergency responders. The 
information assists emergency responders to assess and resolve hazardous materials incidents quickly 
and safely. Inspections are performed by the City every one to two years or upon complaint. 

The Hazardous Materials Ordinance helps San Francisco businesses to satisfy requirements of hazards 
communication and of community right-to-know laws. The registration process also helps businesses 
inventory and reduce the amounts of hazardous materials stored and hazardous wastes produced, and 
reduces overall risks posed to the community by these materials. 

Under the Hazardous Materials Ordinance, the Department of Public Health also permits underground 
storage tanks, oversees the closure of underground storage tanks and hazardous materials establishments. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



116 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - SETTING 

and oversees the investigation of unauthorized releases of hazardous materials or petroleum products 
from underground storage tanks. 

Hazardous Waste Ordinance 

The Hazardous Waste Ordinance (Article 22 of the San Francisco Public Health Code) provides for safe 
handling of hazardous wastes in the City. The ordinance incorporates the state requirements for 
hazardous waste described in Section 6.5 (Hazardous Waste Management) of the Califomia Health and 
Safety Code as well as the accompanying regulations found in CCR Title 22. 

POTENTIAL SOURCES OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND HAZARDOUS BUILDING 
MATERIALS AT PROPOSED PROJECT SITES 

This section describes existing site conditions in terms of potential sources of hazardous materials that 
may affect development at the proposed project sites. Potential sources of hazardous materials at each of 
the proposed project sites include the following: 

• soil or groundwater that have been affected by cheradcal releases from past or present site uses, 

• migration from chemical releases in soil or groundwater at nearby sites, 

• abandoned hazardous materials, 

• existing permitted uses of hazardous materials, including underground and above-ground storage 
tanks, and 

• hazardous building materials. 

If hazardous materials were present in the soil or groundwater at a site, remediation of these materials 
could be required. The need for site remediation would be determined by the regulatory agency 
providing oversight for the site on the basis of the types and concentrations of chemicals present. A risk 
assessment may be conducted to determine acceptable levels of chemicals to be left in place based on the 
future land use of the property. In addition, if hazardous materials were present, construction workers or 
the public could be exposed to hazardous materials during construction and there could be special 
handling requirements for any soil excavated from the proposed project sites. 

Existing permitted uses of hazardous materials are well regulated to ensure safe handling of these 
materials. However, these sites are potential sources of hazardous substances to the soil and/or 
groundwater because of incidental leakage or spillage that may have gone undetected. 

Hazardous building materials are included in this discussion because some project components would 
involve demolition or renovation of existing structures. Some building materials commonly used in 
older buildings could present a public health risk if disturbed during an accident or during demolition of 
an existing building. These materials include asbestos, electrical equipment such as transformers and 
fluorescent light ballasts that contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). fluorescent lights containing 
mercury vapors and lead-based paints. Asbestos and lead-based paint may also present a health n.sk to 



Case No. 1999.377E 



117 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - SETTING 



existing building occupants if they are in a deteriorated condition. If removed during demolition of a 
building, these materials would also require special disposal procedures. 

In addition, this section describes three general sources of hazardous materials in the Southern 
Waterfront project area: fill material, two former solid waste disposal facilities, and Islais Creek. Fill 
used in the development of San Francisco's waterfront is known to contain hazardous materials. There 
are two former solid waste disposal facilities within the project area. One of these has been closed under 
regulatory requirements and the other is undergoing closure. Regulatory requirements for closure are 
described. A summary of hazardous materials conditions regarding Islais Creek is also presented 
separately because conditions within this creek could affect more than one project site. 

Methodology 

To assess the potential for hazardous materials to be present in the soil or groundwater, reports available 
through the Port of San Francisco and the San Francisco Department of Public Works as well as 
underground storage tank reports available at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, Local 
Oversight Program were reviewed in 1994 to identify known environmental conditions within the Project 
Area as part of the San Francisco Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR (Camp Dresser «fe McKee, 1998; 
Crosby & Overton, 1989; ERM-West, 1990; Geo/Resource Consultants, 1990; Orion, 2000; Port of 
San Francisco, 2000a; Port of San Francisco, 2000b; Port of San Francisco, 2000c; Port of San Francisco, 
1997a; Port of San Francisco, 1997b; Port of San Francisco, 1996; Port of San Francisco, undated; SCA 
Environmental, Inc., 1998; RWQCB, 2000; San Francisco Department of Public Health, 2000; 
San Francisco Department of Public Works, 1991; Tetra Tech, 1998; Tetra Tech, 1997; Treadwell & 
Rollo, 2000a; Treadwell & Rollo, 2000b; Treadwell & RoUo, 1999; VISTA Information Solutions, 
2000). To update information for this assessment, reports available through the Port of San Francisco 
were reviewed in February 2000 and a regulatory database search was conducted to identify known 
environmental cases within or adjacent to the project sites. 

A database search was conducted for the project to identify three categories of sites in the project areas 
that may be affected by hazardous materials: (1) sites with permitted underground or above-ground 
storage tanks, (2) sites permitted to handle hazardous wastes under the federal Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA), and (3) known environmental cases (VISTA Information Solutions, 2000). 
Appendix F presents the name and date of each database reviewed for this evaluation. A summary table, 
listing those sites of concern identified by the database review, is also provided in Appendix F. 

Sites permitted to handle hazardous wastes under RCRA and sites with permitted underground or above- 
ground storage tanks are approved to handle hazardous substances. Because the use and handling of 
hazardous materials at permitted sites are subject to strict regulation, the potential for a release of 
hazardous materials from these sites is considered low. Consequently, permitted RCRA and underground 
and above-ground storage tank sites are identified only if they are located within a plaimed project site. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



118 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - SETTING 

Those sites suspected of releasing hazardous materials or that have had cause for hazardous materials 
investigations are identified on regulatory agency lists and are referred to as environmental cases. 
Identification of hazardous materials at these sites is generally due to site disturbance activities such as 
removal of an underground storage tank, a spill of hazardous materials, or excavation for construction. 
To evaluate the potential for hazardous materials in the soil at each of the proposed project sites, this 
section identifies environmental cases within the boundaries of each proposed project site as well as 
adjacent environmental cases which could impair soil quality within the proposed project site. 

General Sources of Hazardous Materials 
Fill Materials 

Prior to human settlement, most of the Southern Waterfront was part of the shallow margins of 
San Francisco Bay. Beginning in the 1850s, the waterfront was gradually filled with brick, wood, metal 
fragments, concrete, other rubble, debris, and sand. The fill along the Bay margins commonly contains 
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs), heavy metals, oil and grease, and volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs), and this is one of the reasons for enactment of San Francisco's Maher Ordinance. 
All of the proposed project sites are underlain by fill. 

Landfill Closures 

Areas at Pier 94 and Pier 70 were filled by the Port in the late 1960's and early 1970's. These areas were 
designated as Class III landfills (non-hazardous solid waste) by the Regional Water Quality Control 
Board (RWQCB) and in 1987 they became subject to closure orders by the RWQCB. In accordance with 
the closure orders, the Port of San Francisco has monitored groundwater quality at these solid waste 
disposal sites on a quarterly basis and reports the results annually to the RWQCB. The status of 
groundwater monitoring and closure of these facilities is further described below. 

Islais Creek Area 

The Islais Creek Area is included on the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) list, on the basis of oily wastes, solvents, 
and landfilling activities. No further remedial action is planned for this site. The Islais Creek area 
between Cargo Way and Amador Street is also identified in the Calsites database (the state equivalent of 
the CERCLIS database). Information available from the database review indicates that this is a former 
Annual Work Plan site that has been referred to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Two spills 
were reported in the ERNS database in the Islais Creek area (VISTA Information Solutions. 2000). 

Industry Group Project Component Sites 

Known hazardous materials conditions at each of the Industry Group project sites are described briefly 
below and are summarized in Table 21. Additional detail regarding these conditions is provided in 
Appendix F. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



119 

ESA 990267 



Southcni W'aicrfronl SEIR 



o 
z 



C/3 



C/2 
-J 
< 

5 

< 

!/] 

O 
Q 

< 
N 
< 



H 

H 

U 

o 

o 
> 

H 

;3 



H 

o 



C/5 

< 
a. 

< 
d 

Q 

J 
ffl 



CO 

u 

CO 

< 

U 
< 
m U 



>■ 
H 

Z 



5 
z 
o 



Q 
Z 

< CO 

z 2 

s < 

CO a 
CO r- 

^ z 

H 

53 



Q 
z 
< 

< CO 
U CO 

5 => 
o 

co 



u 

CO 

D 
Q 
Z 
< 

o 
z 

CO 



X 



z 
o 

< 

u 
o 



z 
u 
z 
o 

s 

O 
U 



5P -a M c 

c c -tri « 

" e 

.— •a 1- «3 



T3 

T3 
O 

<D (U 



> 



c 



c 

o 



C 
00 

c 

ca 
Q 



•a 

o 

— c n. 

ON •- u 
ON "a *- 00 
— 1 u o\ 

_ e « ON 

^ 5 1) —H 



00 D "o 



u ,3 



ON 



ft- 
^ S 

Jo 

O, — 
3 C 

.£ 2 
— C 

^ 8 



-a 
o 

.s s. 

o 2 cl, 

u is .s 

2 2 

^ c S 

c - " 

3 W (£ 

2 & "5 



E ^ J2 o < 
o «c c 



OS -r 



o 

ON y 



_ C/2 

?? U ^ CO 



U3 ~ 

o 



■o 



CJ 

o 



1^ 

3 



« S J? 



^ o 

O 

= 3 

00 U 

3 CJ 

3 m 
3 



T3 

ca 



ON 



> 

a 

u 
•a 

o 

m 



<>0 ' 

3 ^ *^ 
1 = 

.22 



O 3 



> 
S3 

o 

u 
•a 

o 



_2 

1 



u 
-a 
3 o 
XI pa 

■a 2 

o ca 

3 r= 

o 

u 



S = O 



-o 
o 



^ > 

E— ta 
— o 



00 
3 

CO 

ID 
CJ 
O 

•a 

3 



^ ■§ ^ 

o = 



5 



ea 

3 

ea 
u 
ca 

> 



"3 2 -a 



S — < O i-i 
ea ^ Q, T3 



as 



> 
c 

.2 M 

to O 

5 o< 



2 -a 

. - n) 

o <u c 



O 



T3 
O 

PQ 



E 



> 



ea 



s ii 

ea 



-a V 
•o ^ •§ 

ii ^ 3 



= ea t. 

E § :5 .2i 
CJ < a< 



•a 



73 



3 

'« 

oo 
c 

ea 
CJ 

ea 

> 



o 

ON 



CJ 
3 

o 

o 

CO 



< 



-a 



3 

V 

12 

(D 
3 
O 

2 



•a I 

to 3 

O O 

"O 00 

ea 5 t> 

•E = o 

c« 3 



T3 
3 

ea 



S .E 

£ 00 

•2 

2 c 

r: 3 

3 — (U 
4J ^ k- 

ea ^ to 

3 i2 o 



On 



G ii 

^ ea 
00 

.2 00 
< 



« S «j 

= .E-2 ^ 

— 3 r 

^ D aj 



•I = ^ i I 

^ 00 ^ e« 



(U 
3 
3 

3 

O 

o 



ea 
CJ 

H 

00 

00 
3 

ea 
4J 

1^ " 



9J 
00 

ea o 
>^ -ti 
ea CO 

Q S2 

.2 o 
u Oi 

S U 



13 



3 



3 



.2i i> 

3 -z: 

to 3 

O -o 

2 



ea 



ea 

U 4J O 
00 D- 

2 -a -3 

O — b- 

J2 ii S «> 

I 2 i| 
« o a 2 
« <2 ^ i= 



CQ 



O 

00 



CJ 

ea 

Oh 

U 



o 
z 

I 

CO 

I 

CO 



CO 

O 
Q 
as 
< 



O 



H 
Z 

H 
O 

b 
O 
>^ 



CO 

-J 
< 

m 
< 

d 

Q 
CQ 



CO 

U 

CO 

< 

U 

-J t 
< 



s 
z 
o 

> 

z 



Q 

z 

< CO 

z 2 
s < 

CO C3 

CO 



CO 



55 m 
z 

H 



CO 

. ai 
U CO 

5 = 
o 

H 

co 

X 



CO 

Q 
Z 
< 

a 
z 



z 
o 

u 
o 



f- 
z 

z 

o 

Ou 

s 
o 
u 



u T3 

- ■ u 



c ^ 
■>< O 



•T3 
U 

c 

>-> 
> 



c 
_o 

c 



<t) F-i 



T3 

IS 



T3 



■o 

3 



O 

2 



o 



■S ^ (g 



t« 3 



_ S ^ 

■S (D g .O 

^ S3 o ^ in 

i: o OS 

g o "5 2 oo 



c 



3 

C 

C3 
O 

> 



C 

O ^ 

r~ r= ^ 

u, 3 so 
(X ^ 



C 

H 

DO 



« _ 

Oh <U 

>. Si 
C/3 



B 



CO 

c2 U 



c 



> 
o 
c 
oo o 
c 

c/3 XI 



3 

X) 



-a 

(U 

•a 

u 
c 

> 



o 5 



3 

O 

OX) c "O 

« >5 S 



c - 



(D 



c 
-a 



T3 
3 



O 

2 



T3 



T3 
3 



3 

•a 



■a 
£ 

CQ 



3 

XI 

c 

CQ 

o 

CQ 
> 



T3 

> 
CQ 
Cl 



u 

k. 
Q. 



SO 
OS 



< 

00 

3 



o 

CQ 
O 

u 



1 

M 

3 

(A 

a 

CO 
ca 

S 2i 

(u E 
ao 

^ c 

o 

C X3 

eg 
|i 

CO r- 



3 H < 
o c/5 <: 
Z < Z 



c 

o 

3 I 

2 Z 

>^ CQ 

II 

I? 

O 3 

— o 

2 § 



O 
O 
o 

CO 
O 



UJ 
c 

o 



LU 

u 

ai 

O 
c/3 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - SETTING 



A soil investigation was conducted in the western portion of Pier 92 in 1999 to comply with the 
requirements of Article 22A (Treadwell & Rollo, 1999). Based on that investigation and on the various 
document and site reviews conducted for this SEIR, hazardous conditions identified at Industry Group 
sites include elevated concentrations of total and soluble lead in the soil at the proposed Bode Gravel 
ready-mix plant site (part of a proposed joint leasehold with Mission Valley Rock), where fuel storage 
tanks were once located. These levels mean that any soil excavated could be classified as a hazardous 
waste and would require special handling. Soil from one location contained total zinc at a concentration 
greater than the total threshold limit concentration.'^^ Hydrocarbons and other volatile organic 
compounds were identified in the soil, but at levels below those for which any remediation would be 
required prior to industrial reuse. Hydrocarbons and various metals were found in groundwater, but 
because the groundwater in this area is not used as a drinking water supply, no remediation would be 
required. In addition to subsurface contamination, there is a large soil stockpile at Pier 92. Sampling 
indicates that if this soil required disposal, more than half of the pile would be considered hazardous 
waste under state regulations because of concentrations of lead and other metals. 

Although no site survey has been conducted for the site of Mission Valley Rock's proposed aggregate 
import terminal and asphalt plant, conditions are likely similar to those at the Bode site because of the 
similarity of prior uses on the two sites and the proximity of nearby sources of potential contamination. 
A fuel oil tank was removed from the Mission Valley Rock site in 1998, at which time soil 
contamination was noted. The excavation site was lined with an impermeable barrier and the excavated 
soil replaced. However, the San Francisco Department of Public Health will require additional remedial 
action (not completed as of mid-2000). At the adjacent Pier 90 site, where the former grain silos are 
proposed for use by ISG Resources as a fly ash import and storage facility, a limited Phase I 
investigation in 1989 revealed low levels of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes, thought to be a 
result of surface spills from vehicles. 

Pier 94, where British Pacific Aggregates (BPA) proposes an aggregate shipping terminal, consists of fill 
including soil and rock, construction waste, dredge spoil, and miscellaneous refuse. Part of Pier 94 is 
subject to landfill closure requirements imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 
However, the paved portion, where the BPA facility would be located, is outside of the portion of the 
landfill subject to closure requirements. 

No known site assessments or investigations have been conducted at the Pier 80 site where RMC Pacific 
Materials proposes a concrete ready-mix plant. Several fuel leaks have been identified in the vicinity, 
and two underground tanks have been removed nearby. Remedial action has occurred at all but one of 
the four sites noted. 



A waste is considered hazardous on the basis of toxicity if it contains the specified substance at a concentration greater than 
the regulatory levels spedfied in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 66261.24(a)(2). These regulatory 
levels include the Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) and the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC). 



Case No. 1999.377E 



122 

ESA 990267 

a 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - SETTING 

No site assessments are known to have occurred at the other two Industry Group sites. Waste 
Management's proposed construction materials recycling facility at Pier 70 and Coach USA's proposed 
bus storage depot at Pier 96. Both of these facilities would use existing buildings, where materials such 
as asbestos and lead-based paint could be present. The only identified instance of potential subsurface 
contamination related to either of these sites was as gasoline leak at an underground storage tank near 
Pier 96 in 1996; soil was excavated and disposed of and this case was reported closed. (See the further 
discussion concerning Pier 70 on p. 126, under "Potential Future Port Development Projects." 

Illinois Street Intermodal Bridge 

The review performed for this EIR did not identify any site assessments or site investigations performed 
for Islais Creek in the area planned for the intermodal bridge. The Islais Creek area was identified as an 
environmental case in several environmental databases, as described in the Islais Creek Area discussion 
on p. 119. 

Future Port Development Sites 

Ejiown hazardous materials conditions at the future Port development sites are described briefly below 
and are summarized in Table 22. Additional detail regarding these conditions is provided in Appendix F. 

Dredge Material Handling Site 

As described above in the discussion of British Pacific Aggregates, Pier 94, where the Port proposes its 
expanded dredge material storage operation, consists of a former landfill subject to closure requirements 
imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Pier 94 is an approximately 96-acre partialh' 
paved site created by placement of inert and non-inert fill material to construct a marine shipping 
terminal. The fill is composed of a variety of materials including clayey soil and rock firagments. 
construction waste mixed with soil, dredge spoil, and miscellaneous refuse. A variety of earthen 
materials and debris, including concrete, asphalt, and metal debris and household garbage) was placed 
over the site after fill placement ceased. Groundwater at Pier 94 is monitored in accordance with Closure 
Order No. 87-061 from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (Port of San Francisco, 
1997a). 

In 1991, a preliminary closure plan was submitted to the RWQCB for the 14-acre section of Pier 94 that 
is subject to the closure order. The plan addressed reconstruction and grading, final cover, precipitation 
and drainage control, shoreline stabilization, geotechnical stability, and settlement. The Port has not 
received comments from the RWQCB on the preliminary plan. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



123 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



a 
z 

a 

CO 

I 

00 

J 
< 

u 

< 

C/3 

o 

Q 

< 
N 
< 
X 

M 



O 
Q 
J 
ca 

O 
a 

< 



a 
z 
< 

z 
u 

CO 

m 

CO 
CO 

< 

E- 



co 
>< 



< 

m u 

S > 

2: z 
o s 

S CO 

> 

z 



m 5j 



CO 
CO 

D 
Q 
Z 
< 

-1 

< 

y 
5 
o 

H 
22 



Q 

z 
< 

7 CO 



Z 
O 

< 

U 

o 



z 

Z 

o 

o 
u 



< 



c 

u 

C 

o 



= S 

to 3 
O O 

c3 u «^ 
■H S o 

•§ i 



C 



c 

> 



■<1- 

ON 



C3 C 

u « « 



•a 

4) 



C 73 - B3 ^ 
lis III 



O C 



c 2 ^ 22 
« ^ i> g 



3 

CO XI 



T3 

U — ( 

C O 

O — 1 



1) 



«> i2 o ^ 

4) (/3 e 



> 



C 

o 

CO 



c 

4) US 



3 2 



X) .2 
C5 -O 



CO OX) 



2 o c 



CO 3 
CQ CQ 



O = 



00 CO • 

C 'S ^ 

o a> 

^ C CO 

CO S O 

U = -7! 



C/3 1> 



CO CO 

O 00 



CO 



CO f_, _ 

£ D S * 



00 

2 3 = 

-= U .is 

2 c , 

i: "1 w> — 

c« CO C =2 

3 O ~ u 

■g ON 2 g 



00 

s 



00 

5 « 

c a. 



"2 J2 



c 00 



(U 

i-tH CO CO 



3 



00 -= 

co' 2 



CO 

V 

CO 

3 

O 

■O co' J= 
S ? « 



CJ T3 



CO 



a- -2 
o E 



o 2 



CO "P 

.5 

3 u 

00 

3 CS 



- 2 S 

o s ^ 



O 
o 

CO 

5 " 

2 o 

ti: Q 



o 

u 



•a 

u 



o 
r- 



" " CO 

£j 00 M 



E 



3 
X 



CQ 
c 

CO 



c c 



C3 



C CO o 

^ E 

c ~ 5 

^ « Jo ^2 

O O «J 

■5 " t: ^ 

o o c 

o B 



■a 
s 

Q 



s 



^ CO 



O 

9 H i 

4) 
O 
C3 



§ W £0 ^ 
CO p •(£; 



w 

H 

O - 



00 

;5 CQ 



T3' 



CO CO r- 



00 

c 



T3 
C 
3 

O 

O 



4) 

4) X 

a. „ 

CO • — 

3 O 

CO CO 



O « 

o E 



ca 
u 
c 

to g 

^. i 

\o cfc: 

00 T3 
C 4> 

•3 E 
m 2i 



4> 
> 

•a 

c 2 
« E 

— ' 

00 ^ 

.E -o 
2 3 
■5 2 

CQ 00 



T3 

4) 

O ^ 

E - 

CO .£ 

CO := 

"71 CQ 

£ S 



T3 

o 

13 
u 

55 
E 

4> 
4) 



o 
c^ 
< 

CO 



o 
> 
c 
o 
U 



CO U J= 



H 

CO 

< 

c 
E f- 

O !>3 



Q CQ CO U D 



3 *J 

o £ 2 w) 

g- O to -3 ~ 

es op — O 



.= > C I- 00 " 



•7: C3 3 o 



o 



c j=i 

3 CJ 



e3 



0^ 



E 

o s 

L> CQ 

4> «5 



6 



a 
z 

i 

I 

< 
5 

< 

00 

O 
Q 

a: 
< 

< 

X 



G 

Qi 

B 
a 

u 
o 
a 

s 



es 

o 



H 
Z 
Ez3 
H 
O 

O 
>^ 

C/3 



O 
Q 
.J 
oa 

00 

D 
O 
Q 

< 

N 
< 

a: 



> 

Z 



< 



Q 
z 
< 

z 
u 



00 O 



^ z 

H 



CO 

M 

00 

Q 
Z 
< 



O 
H 

oo 



Q 
Z 
< 

o tu 

7 GO 

H 

C/2 
>< 

w 



z 
o 

< 
u 
o 



E- 

z 
u 
z 
o 

a. 

O 
U 



< 



S I 

c 

o 



c 

, 3 
<D O 



on 
c 



ON 
00 
ON 



CO D 



3 n C 55 c 



60 



— So 

o =« « 



T3 

U O 



On 
0\ 

— 1 t3 



C U 

4) 1— 

£ 

s 1 1 

ta CO 3 

ca oo 



c 

3 
1 



T3 

ea 
O 



ac 
ca 

u o 
C Wl to 

ta c -a 
c — s 
u u ca 

S c 

ca r o 

5 c ca 
2 -c H 

= 3 ^2 
X) ^ < 



c 

ca 
o 
ca 

> 



o 

00 



'o 
ca 
Cl, 

c 

a 

CO 



< 

2 



■a 



c 
u 

o 

2 



T3 



T3 " -5 



o <u 



s 



•o 

3 



Q I 
2 I 

Sea 
u 



£i u u 

CO 

00 

u 

00 
00 

< 



u. t =: 00 

3 i_ ~ 73 ^ c/3 
•O ea O C ^ O 



05 C -3 

6 S5 I « 



« f? C 



to _^ 



3t 

ON C 

6 i2 

ON ^ 

<- ^ 

.a m 

ft, " 




o 



c 
o 

E 
c 

2 
> 
c 

c 

o 



u 

u 

D 
O 

c/3 



m. E>?VIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - SETTING 



Various options are under consideration for closure of the landfill (Tetra Tech, 1997) and selection of the 
appropriate option could depend on the intended reuse of the site. The Port is currently compiling and 
reviewing groundwater monitoring data for the landfill to further assess closure requirements as required 
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Port of San Francisco, 2000a). The designs, grading 
plans, material and construction specifications, schedules and cost estimates would all need to be 
substantially revised prior to submitting the final closure plan for RWQCB approval (Port of 
San Francisco, 1997b). 

Implementation of the Port's dredge material expansion project could require that the area to be used be 
capped with an impermeable barrier to prevent decant water from draining out of dredged material and 
into and through the former landfill. Alternatively, the Port could perform further testing that might 
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the RWQCB, that infiltration of seawater through the former landfill 
would not adversely affect water quality in the Bay. Thus, implementation of the dredge material 
expansion project in compliance with RWQCB regulations would result in a less-than-significant effect. 

Other Port Lands 

Pier 70 and surrounding areas contain a solid waste landfill and nimierous dilapidated old buildings. 
There has been heavy industrial use, including ship repair, at Pier 70 for more than 100 years. Previous 
land uses and underground storage tanks within this area have affected soil and/or groundwater quality. 
In addition, there are several existing land uses that involve the use of hazardous materials. There is also 
a three-acre solid waste disposal site that includes four shipyard slips. The site was constructed of 
demolition debris from previously existing structures mixed with earthen material. Deposition of fill 
material was completed, and the site was capped with asphalt in 1971. On the basis of groundwater 
monitoring results, the waste material does not pose a threat to water quality and does not require 
additional characterization or management as a landfill (RWQCB, 2000) 

A Phase I site assessment for the Pier 70 area (Tetra Tech, 1998) identified a number of historic 
underground and above-ground storage tanks, many of which have been removed and some of which 
were reported to have leaked. Remediation has been conducted at several sites. The Phase I report also 
identified other potential sources of hazardous materials, including: 

• Soil in the vicinity of Building 6 was reported to contain copper, lead, zinc, and PNAs. Additional 
sampling was recommended and there were plans to clean the inside of Building 6. There were 
indications that hazardous waste may have been left in Building 6; 

• Building 12 may contain concentrations of lead and cadmium; 

• There are reported releases of heavy metals from former site activities to areas south of the mixed 
use opportunity area; and 

• There were reported spills of hazardous materials in the old Convoy Company facility in 1987. The 
DTSC recommended catch basins beneath drums used for oils, hydraulic fluids, and antifreeze. 
Documentation reviewed did not show the location of this facility, but it is estimated to be to the east 
of Building 113. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



126 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTTSG AND IMPACTS 



E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - SETTING 



Activities at facility that formerly operated in the northwest comer of Pier 70, B & C Metals, could have 
affected soil and/or groundwater quality within the Mixed Use Opportunity Area. In 1996, soil identified 
as a hazardous waste on the basis of lead concentrations was removed from two paved boat ramps 
adjacent to B & C Metals, where vessels had been dismantled (Port of San Francisco, 2000c). B&C 
Metals used many hazardous materials including lubricating oils and flammable gasses, but 
documentation from 1997 indicates that B&C did not register them or comply with hazardous materials 
storage regulations. In addition, some vessels accepted at the facility contained asbestos containing 
materials and lead based paint although the employees were not trained to identify and manage these 
materials. In 1997 five vessels were stored at Pier 70 and three of these vessels contained asbestos 
containing materials and lead-based paint (Tetra Tech, 1998). The Port reports that four of these vessels 
have been removed and the one that remains is not believed to contain asbestos (Port of San Francisco, 
2000b). 

The vacant buildings within Pier 70 are in a generally dilapidated condition. Based on their age 
(constructed prior to 1950), they would likely contain hazardous building materials, including lead-based 
paint. Asbestos has been identified in several buildings. There are electrical transformers remaining at 
Pier 70 with PCB containing oil (Tetra Tech, 1998). These transformers are typically surveyed and 
retrofitted on a project specific basis and it would be necessary to conduct a survey of any buildings 
planned for demolition or renovation to determine if any PCB containing electrical equipment remains 
within a specific building. Mitigation Measure E.4, p. 152, would require such surveys. A cleanup of 
illegally stored hazardous materials was completed at Building 6 in 1983. 

At the Western Pacific Property, lead and arsenic were identified in the soil at concentrations exceeding 
the total threshold limit concentration. Hydrocarbons and metals were detected in soil samples, and the 
groundwater was found to be affected by petroleum products, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, 
volatile organic compounds, and lead. In addition, the off-shore sediments were found to contain 
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and metals (Dames & Moore, 1989). In accordance with a request 
from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, a site remediation was conducted in 1993 and 1994 
which involved capping the site to reduce the potential for infiltration and runoff. As part of this 
remediation, the following activities were conducted (Levine-Fricke, 1994): regrading of the shoreline 
slope; placing a geotextile fabric to inhibit migration of fines to the bay; installing riprap slope 
protection; constructing a 10-foot wide gravel sediment trap behind the riprap; regrading a 50-foot wide 
strip behind the sediment trap; placing a geotextile on the subgrade and paving over the geotextile; and 
constructing an 80-foot wide gravel transition zone behind the paved area. 

The San Francisco Municipal Railway plans to use the western portion of this property for a light rail 
vehicle maintenance and operations facility and has conducted a Site Characterization/Corrective 
Measures study to comply with Article 22A. The Port is currently reviewing the data for the eastern 
portion of the site planned for Port use, and is conducting a risk assessment for various reuse scenarios. 
The choice of uses would depend partially on the results of the risk assessment (Port of San Francisco. 
2000a). A draft Risk Assessment report found all re-use scenarios evaluated, except that for single- 



Case No. 1999.377E 



127 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - SETTING 



family housing, to be below accepted risk criteria; no single-family housing is proposed for the Western 
Pacific site. The database review identified this site in the North Bay County Toxic List, but no further 
information was available (VISTA Information Solutions, 2000). 

The review performed for this EIR did not identify any site assessments or site investigations performed 
for the Pier 90 to 94 backlands. A portion of the backlands being considered for development overlap 
the regulated portion of the landfill at Pier 94 (described under British Pacific Aggregates, above). 
Current activities at this site include Specialty Crushing, Tide Water Sand and Gravel (Hanson 
Aggregates), and the Port of San Francisco Marine Terminal. Specialty Crushing and Tide Water Sand 
and Gravel are located atop the regulated portion of the landfill. 



IMPACTS 



SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

The City has not formally adopted significance standards for hazard impacts, but it generally considers 
that implementation of the Southern Waterfront project would have a significant hazards effect if it were 
to: 

• involve a substantial risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but 
not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation); 

• expose people to existing sources of potential hazards including hazardous materials; 

• create a public health hazard or potential public health hazard; or 

• interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 

Definition, identification and determination of threshold levels of hazardous materials and wastes are 
provided in the Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) and in Title 22 of the California 
Code of Regulations. In accordance with these regulations, a hazardous waste is a substance or 
combination of substances, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or 
infectious characteristics may pose a substantial threat, or potential hazard to human health, or 
environment, when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. 
Determination of "substantial" hazard or "insignificant" levels of hazardous materials is performed by 
the regulatory agencies on a case-by-case basis, depending on the proposed uses, potential exposure, and 
degree and type of hazard. 

It is not anticipated that any of the project components would interfere with emergency response or 
evacuation plans. The Industry Group components would generally be constructed on sites that would be 
relatively isolated (east of Third Street) and therefore would not substantially interfere with emergency 
routes. Furthermore, the Industry Group components would not result in large concentrations of people, 
as employment would be relatively small at each component (most of the sites would be devoted to 
materials processing and storage). Some of the potential future Port developments (office, research and 
development, retail uses) could involve large numbers of employees. However, buildings that would 



Case No. 1999.377E 



128 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVreONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - IMPACTS 



house such uses would be constructed in accordance with applicable building and fire codes, with plans 
to be reviewed by the Port's fire marshal, which would minimize risks due to any potential inadequacies 
in emergency response routes. 

IMPACT ANALYSIS-INDUSTRY GROUP COMPONENTS 
Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials or Petroleum Products 

Projects at Bode Gravel, Mission Valley Rock, Waste Resources Technologies, and Coach USA would 
include above-ground or underground storage tanks for the storage of fuel products. Above-ground fuel 
tanks may also be required for British Pacific Aggregates and ISG Resources. The proposed Mission 
Valley Asphalt Plant would also include the above-ground storage of asphalt cement. 

If a leak occurred from an on-site fuel tank, the material stored in the tank could affect soil, groimdwater, 
or Bay water quality. However, businesses that store petroleum products above ground would be 
required to comply with the requirements of the City's Hazardous Materials Ordinance which includes 
the requirements for secondary containment and preparation of a Spill Prevention Control and 
Countermeasure Plan to specify emergency procedures to be followed in the event of a spill. When 
stored above-ground, fuels are commonly stored in an above-ground tank similar to a Convault system 
with secondary contaimnent that is virtually leak-proof. Regulations governing underground storage 
tanks (USTs) require a separate permit to operate a UST and include an inspection and monitoring 
requirement by the Department of Public Health (DPH). Further, all establishments that store fuel on- 
site, whether in above-ground or underground tanks, must register with DPH. 

In the unlikely event that a leak or tank rupture did occur, the spill would likely be contained within the 
secondary containment system for the tank. Secondary containment and implementation of emergency 
response procedures would minimize potential exposure of site personnel and the public to petroleum 
vapors as well as protect the site from potential environmental contamination. Compliance with existing 
regulations regarding storage and spill protection would therefore render this impact less than significant. 

Hazardous Materials in Soil 

Construction for the Bode Gravel and Mission Valley Rock projects would involve the excavation of 
more than 50 cubic yards of soil. If hazardous materials are present in the exposed soil or groundwater, 
there could be a public health impact. During construction, workers and the public could become 
exposed to airborne contaminants and if hazardous wastes are left in the soil, site occupants could be 
exposed through normal operations unless mitigation measures are implemented. These potential 
impacts are mitigated through compliance with Article 22A "Analyzing the Soil for Hazardous Wastes." 
The following activities are required to comply with this article: 

• Preparation of a site history report; 

• Implementation of a soil investigation; 



Case No. 1999.377E 



129 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - IMPACTS 



• Preparation of a soil analysis report; 

• Preparation of a site mitigation report; and 

• Preparation of a certification report certifying compliance with Article 22A. 

These activities have been completed for Pier 92 to the satisfaction of the San Francisco Department of 
Public Health through preparation of the site mitigation report. The site history report is summarized in 
the Setting, p. 122, and described further in Appendix F. A site mitigation plan has been prepared 
specifying measures that will be taken to mitigate risks to the site workers and public associated with the 
presence of lead in the soil at Pier 92 (Treadwell & Rollo, 2000b). The plan specifies the following: 

• Placement of part of the stockpiled soil in the lower portions of the site to bring the entire site up to 
final grade for the proposed project. Soil produced from excavation for utilities would be 
incorporated into this pile. Soil remaining after site grading would be placed on the western 
portion of Pier 92 after it is compacted and graded; 

• Use of dust control measures during excavation activities. These measures may include moisture 
conditioning or use of dust suppressants to reduce the exposure to contaminants in the soil; 

• Preparation of a health and safety plan specifying measures to protect site workers and the public 
from exposure to chemicals during excavation activities; 

• Installation of an asphalt or concrete cap to mitigate the potential for direct contact with the soil by 
future site users. The entire site would be covered by a structure or the cap; 

• Implementation of maintenance requirements to ensure that the long-term site mitigation measures 
(specifically capping the soil) will remain in effect during the site's use and occupancy period. 

The San Francisco Department of Public Health (DPH) approved the site mitigation plan in April 2000 
(SFDPH, 2000). As part of its approval, DPH noted that a certification report and maintenance report are 
required as part of the proposed project because of the elevated levels of lead that will remain in the soil 
beneath the cap. The planned maintenance measures specified in the site mitigation report to maintain 
the integrity of the cap and protect future site workers who may disturb the cap include: 

• Notify DPH of any proposed activity expected to disturb the integrity of the capping layer or soil 
thirty (30) calendar days before work commences. In cases of emergency, DPH shall be notified 
within 24 hours and work should commence in accordance with the mitigation measures described 
in the soil management plan. 

• Prepare a specific work plan that includes a description of the proposed construction activities, soil 
management plan, and health and safety plan. 

• Require any contractor or employee who disturbs the cap and is engaged in any excavation or earth 
movement at the property to comply with appropriate local, state, and federal regulations. 

• Require any contractor or employee engaged in any activities that involve penetrating the cap to 
repair the disturbed area as soon as is practical. 

• Control dust by wetting and protect the exposed or excavated soil from storm water run-on and 
run-off during the period of excavation, soil movement, or exposure. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



130 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - IMPACTS 

• Determine by appropriate testing whether any excess material removed from the site is hazardous 
pursuant to state and federal hazardous waste criteria. This material must be managed in 
accordance with all appropriate regulations. 

• Provide DPH with a report that describes the maintenance activities related to the cap or 
excavation of soil. 

The Port and the operator of the site would be required to maintain the site mitigation plan, maintenance 
report, and maintenance records in a readily accessible on-site location. They would also be responsible 
for informing any employee or contractor who will perform below-grade construction of the 
environmental conditions, soil management concerns, and health and safety requirements stipulated in 
the soil management plan. Compliance with existing Article 22A regulations regarding site mitigation 
and site maintenance would therefore render this impact less than significant. 

In addition, remaining stockpiled soil at Pier 92 may require disposal if it cannot be used in construction 
projects. If disposed of off-site, the soil would probably be screened to remove large debris and tested to 
determine an appropriate disposal site. Soil from the stockpile may not be suitable for disposal at a solid 
waste landfill, and may require disposal as a California hazardous waste due to its soluble lead content. 
A detailed description of soil disposal requirements is presented in Appendix F. With compliance with 
existing waste disposal regulations, this impact would be less than significant. 

In addition to the Bode and Mission Valley Rock site, other Industry Group project components that may 
involve excavation of more than .50 cubic yards of soil would also be required to comply with 
Article 22A. Similarly, construction of the Illinois Street bridge would be subject to Article 22A should 
more than 50 cubic yards of excavation be required. Compliance with Article 22A procedures would 
reduce any potential impacts resulting from subsurface contamination to a less-than-significant level. 
For sites not subject to Article 22A because they would involve excavation of less than 50 cubic yards, 
the potential for exposure to subsurface hazardous materials is very small, because the amount of soil to 
be moved would be negligible (the equivalent of a 37-foot by 37-foot square one foot deep). 

Release of Chemicals from Construction Equipment 

During construction at each of the proposed project sites there is the potential that construction 
equipment could accidentally release petroleum products such as oil, grease, or fuel which could enter 
Islais Creek or the Bay and degrade water quality. This impact is judged less than significant because it 
is mitigated by compliance with existing laws. As discussed in Water Quality (Section III.D). where 
construction activities are adjacent to a waterway, and where more than five acres would be disturbed 
through grading or excavation, the construction contractor(s) would be required to prepare and 
implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan as well as a Storm Water Pollution 
Prevention Plan. Construction contract specifications would include strict on-site handling rules to keep 
construction and maintenance materials out of receiving waters. The plan would include measures to be 
taken in the event of an accidental spill. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation (i.e. 
compliance with existing requirements for a spill prevention control and countermeasure plan, described 



Case No. 1999.377E 



131 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - IMPACTS 

in Mitigation Measure E.l, and with preparation of a storm water pollution prevention plan described in 
Mitigation Measure D.l). 

Hazardous Building Materials 

Hazardous building materials may be encountered during renovation or demolition of existing buildings. 
Exposure to hazardous building materials (if present) could occur as a result of these activities. Potential 
hazardous building materials that could be present include asbestos, lead-based paint, PCBs, and 
fluorescent lights containing mercury vapors. 

Asbestos 

If friable or nonfriable asbestos is present, there is a potential for release of airborne asbestos fibers when 
the asbestos-containing materials are disturbed, unless proper asbestos abatement precautions are taken. 
Such a release could expose the public and construction workers to airborne asbestos fibers. 

Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, adopted January 1, 1991, requires that local 
agencies not issue demolition or alteration permits until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with 
notification requirements under applicable Federal regulations regarding hazardous air pollutants, 
including asbestos. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is vested by the 
California legislature with authority to regulate airborne pollutants, including asbestos, through both 
inspection and law enforcement, and is to be notified ten days in advance of any proposed demolition 
(defined as moving or dismantling or any structural member of a building), and any renovation in which 
more than 100 linear feet, 100 square feet, or 35 cubic feet of asbestos-containing material is to be 
removed. Notification includes the names, addresses and phone numbers of operations and persons 
responsible, including the contractor; description and location of the structure to be 
renovated/demolished including size, age and prior use, and the approximate amount of friable asbestos; 
scheduled starting and completion dates of demolition; nature of planned work and methods to be 
employed; procedures to be employed to meet BAAQMD requirements; and the name and location of the 
waste disposal site to be used. The District randomly inspects removal operations. In addition, the 
District inspects any removal operations concerning which a complaint has been received. 

The local office of the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) must be 
notified if asbestos abatement is to be carried out. Asbestos abatement contractors must follow State 
regulations contained in 8 CCR 1529 and 8 CCR 341.6 through 341.14 where there is asbestos-related 
work involving 100 square feet or more of asbestos-containing material. Asbestos removal contractors 
must be certified as such by the Contractors Licensing Board of the State of California. The owner of the 
property where abatement would occur must have a Hazardous Waste Generator Number assigned by, 
and registered with, the California Department of Health Services. The contractor and the hauler of the 
material are required to file a Hazardous Waste Manifest that details the hauling of the material from the 
site and the disposal of the material. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



132 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - IMPACTS 

Prior to renovation or demolition of any existing structures, the applicable project sponsor (Industry 
Group member) would be responsible for properly removing confirmed asbestos containing materials 
(see Mitigation Measure No. E.4, p. 152). Implementation of this measure and compliance with State 
asbestos regulations and procedures would ensure that any potential impacts due to asbestos would be 
reduced to a level of insignificance. 

Lead-Based Paint 

If lead-based paint is present and has delaminated or chipped from the surfaces of the building materials, 
there is a potential for the release of airborne lead particles during construction, renovation, or other 
activities that would disturb loose or peeling paint, unless proper lead abatement procedures are 
followed. Construction and renovation activities must comply with Chapter 36 of the San Francisco 
Building Code, Work Practices for Exterior Lead-Based Paint. Where there is any work that may disturb 
or remove lead paint on the exterior of any building built prior to December 31, 1978, Chapter 36 
requires specific notification and work standards, and identifies prohibited work methods and penalties. 

Chapter 36 applies to buildings or steel structures on which original construction was completed prior to 
1979 (which are assumed to have lead-based paint on their surfaces), where more than ten total square 
feet of lead-based paint would be disturbed or removed. The ordinance contains performance standards, 
including establishment of containment barriers that are at least as effective at protecting human health 
and the environment as those in the most recent Guidelines for Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based 
Paint Hazards promulgated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The ordinance 
also identifies prohibited practices that may not be used in disturbance or removal of lead-based paint. 
Any person performing work subject to the ordinance shall make all reasonable efforts to prevent 
migration of lead paint contaminants beyond containment barriers during the course of the work, and any 
person performing regulated work shall make all reasonable efforts to remove all visible lead paint 
contaminants from all regulated areas of the property prior to completion of the work. 

The ordinance includes notification requirements, contents of notice, and requirements for signs. 
Notification includes notifying bidders for the work of any paint-inspection reports verifying the 
presence or absence of lead-based paint in the regulated area of the proposed project. Prior to 
commencement of work, the responsible party (owner or contractor) must provide written notice to the 
Director of Building Inspection of the location of the project; the nature and approximate square footage 
of the painted surface being disturbed and/or removed; anticipated job start and completion dates for the 
work; whether the responsible party has reason to know or presume that lead-based paint is present; 
whether the building is residential or non-residential, owner-occupied or rental property; the approximate 
number of dwelling units, if any; the dates by which the responsible party has or will fulfill any tenant or 
adjacent property notification requirements; and the name, address, telephone number, and pager number 
of the party who will perform the work. (Further notice requirements include Sign When Contaminant is 
Required, Notice by Landlord, Required Notice to Tenants, Availability of Pamphlet related to protection 
from lead in the home. Notice by Contractor, Early Commencement of Work [by Owner. Requested by 
Tenant], and Notice of Lead Contaminated Dust or Soil, if applicable.) The ordinance contains 



Case No. 1999.377E 



133 

ESA 990267 



Southt-m Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - IMPACTS 



provisions regarding inspection and sampling, and enforcement, and describes penalties for non- 
compliance with the requirements of the ordinance. 

These regulations and procedures required as part of the San Francisco Building Code would ensure that 
potential impacts due to lead-based paint would be reduced to a level of insignificance. 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Fluorescent Light Tubes 

If PCBs are present in the building to be demolished, leakage could expose workers to unacceptable 
levels of PCBs (greater than 5 parts per million, based on Title 22, California Code of Regulations). 

Removal of fluorescent light tubes could result in exposure to mercury vapors if the lights are broken. A 
detailed description of hazardous building material abatement and disposal requirements is presented in 
Appendix F. 

The project sponsors would ensure that survey(s) for hazardous building materials is completed prior to 
renovations of an existing building, and that removal and disposal of transformers and light tubes, if 
required, is completed (see Mitigation Measure No. E.4, p. 152). This would reduce impacts related to 
hazardous building materials to a less-than-significant level. 

IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR FUTURE PORT DEVELOPMENT (PROGRAM-LEVEL) 

As described in the setting, site remediation was conducted in 1993 and 1994 for the Western Pacific 
Property, under direction from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which included regrading of 
the shoreline slope; placing a geotextile fabric to inhibit migration of fines to the bay; installing riprap 
slope protection; constructing a 10-foot wide gravel sediment trap behind the riprap; regrading a 50-foot 
wide strip behind the sediment trap; placing a geotextile on the subgrade and paving over the geotextile; 
and constructing an 80-foot wide gravel transition zone behind the paved area. A subsequent draft Risk 
Assessment report found all re-use scenarios evaluated, except that for single-family housing, to be 
below accepted risk criteria; no single-family housing is proposed for the Western Pacific site. 

Impacts associated with the future development projects on Port lands would generally be comparable to 
those described above for the Industry Group project components. On a program level, these impacts 
would be considered less than significant through compliance with existing laws including Article 22A, 
the Hazardous Materials Ordinance, and the Hazardous Waste Ordinance, and hazardous materials 
abatement and disposal regulations. 

Potential impacts could include worker exposure to subsurface contamination (soil and groundwater), 
including unknown underground storage tanks; exposure of workers and/or the public to hazardous 
building materials; and accidental release of hazardous materials during project operations. Site-specific 
environmental review could be required for subsequent development projects on Port lands. 



Case No. 1999.277E 134 Southern Waterfront SEIR 

ESA 990267 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - IMPACTS 

Future development on Port lands would likely occur in phases, meaning that there would be the 
potential for workers to occupy one building while an adjacent, potentially contaminated, site is under 
construction. Compliance with the provisions of Article 22A, where applicable, would ensure that 
effects on occupants of adjacent properties would be less than significant. 

With regard to the Pier 90-94 backlands, as noted in the setting, part of Pier 94 is subject to a Regional 
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) preliminary closure plan for 14 acres of a former landfill. The 
plan addressed reconstruction and grading, final cover, precipitation and drainage control, shoreline 
stabilization, geotechnical stability, and settlement. The Port has not received conmients from the 
RWQCB on the preliminary plan. 

Various options are under consideration for closure of the landfill (Tetra Tech, 1997) and selection of the 
appropriate option could depend on the intended reuse of the site. The Port is currently compiling and 
reviewing groundwater monitoring data for the landfill to further assess closure requirements as required 
by the RWQCB (Port of San Francisco, 2000a). The designs, grading plans, material and construction 
specifications, schedules and cost estimates would all need to be substantially revised prior to submitting 
the final closure plan for RWQCB approval (Port of San Francisco, 1997b). Development in accordance 
with RWQCB regulations would avoid any potentially significant effects on the former Pier 94 landfill 
site. 



REFERENCES - Hazardous Materials 

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB). 2000. Order 
No. 00-030, Rescission of Waste Discharge Requirements in Order No. 87-060. City and County 
of San Francisco, San Francisco Port Commission, Pier 70 Class III Landfill. April 19. 

Camp Dresser & McKee, 1998. Underground Storage Tank Removal Report, Pier 92. San Francisco. 
California. September 25. 

Crosby & Overton, Inc., 1989. Muni/Pier 90 Investigation. December 29. (P-9) 

Dames & Moore, 1989. Final Draft Report, Phase II Site Characterization/Risk Assessment. Union 
Pacific Army Street Site, San Francisco, California. June 26. (P- 1 1 ) 

ERM-West, Inc., 1990. Hazardous Materials Investigation of the Mariposa Facilities Project Area. July. 
(P-7) 

GeoResource Consultants, Inc., 1990. Final Data Compilation Report, Pier 70, San Francisco. California. 
January 2. 

Levine-Fricke, 1994. Completion of Shoreline Remediation Activities, Union Pacific Army Street Site. 
San Francisco, California. June 10. 

Orion Environmental Associates, 2000. Site visits by Mary McDonald on February 29 and March 3. 

Port of San Francisco, 1996. Underground Storage Tank Closure Documentation. Pon of San Francisco. 
March 21. 



Case No. I999.377E 



135 

ESA 990267 



Sourhcrtt Wait'rf'ront SEIR 



m. ENVreONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - IMPACTS 

Port of San Francisco, 1997a. 1996 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report, Piers 70, 94, and 98, Port of 
San Francisco, California. June 23. 

Port of San Francisco, 1997b. Landfill Closure Requirements, Pier 94. Memo from Carol Bach to Nick 
La Rocco. June 24. 

Port of San Francisco, 2000a. Personal communication from Carol Bach to Mary McDonald of Orion 
Environmental Associates. February 16. 

Port of San Francisco, 2000b. Email from Carol Bach to Mary McDonald of Orion Environmental 
Associates. May 22. 

Port of San Francisco, 2000c. File review by Mary McDonald of Orion Environmental Associates. May 
24. 

Port of San Francisco, undated. Abandoned Waste. (P-20) 

San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH), 2000. Letter to Berkeley Asphalt «fe Ready Mix, 
Bode Gravel Company, and Treadwell & Rollo re Proposed Batch Plant, Pier 92 - Amador Street, 
San Francisco, CA. April 6. 

San Francisco Department of Public Works, 1991. Inter-Bureau Memo from Stanley DeSouza to 
Manfred Wong. Pier 70 Soil/Groundwater Results from PACE Laboratories, Inc & Mariposa 
Facilities Project. January 22. 

SCA Environmental, Inc., 1998. Sunmiary Report: Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Survey, Pier 70, 
Buildings 36, 40, 101, 104, and 109, 20"" and Illinois Streets, San Francisco, California. May. - 

Tetra Tech, Inc., 1997. Pier 94 Landfill Closure Plan Peer Review. September 22. 

Tetra Tech, Inc. 1998. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Pier 70, Mixed Use Opportunity Area, 
Comer of Illinois Street and 20* Street, San Francisco, California, 94107. August. 

Treadwell & Rollo, 1999. Environmental Site Assessment, Bode Gravel, Pier 92, Port of San Francisco, 
San Francisco, California. August 12. 

Treadwell & Rollo, 2000a. Soil Stockpile Profiling, Pier 92 - Amador Street, San Francisco, California. 
January 12. 

Treadwell & Rollo, 2000b. Site Mitigation Plan, Proposed Berkeley Asphalt/Bode Gravel Batch Plants, 
Pier 92, San Francisco, California. March 29. 

VISTA Information Solutions, 2000. Site Assessment Plus Report. February 11. 



F. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

This section focuses on potential impacts on biological resources that could result from construction of 
the proposed Illinois Street Bridge over Islais Creek. For information on other effects related to 
biological resources, please see the Waterfront Land Use Plan FEIR (Section IV.H, Biological Resources 
Setting, p. 244; Section V.H, Biological Resources Impacts, p. 548; and Section VI.H., Biological 
Resources Mitigation Measures, p. 653). Mitigation Measures from the Waterfront Land Use Plan FEIR 
are also included in Chapter IV of this SEIR. 



Case No. 1999.377E 136 Southern Waterfront SEIR 

ESA 990267 



m. ENTVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

F. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - SETTING 

SETTING 

Historically, Islais Creek intersected the band of tidal marshes and embayments between Candlestick 
Point and Coyote Point, carrying runoff from a number of small creeks in southeastern San Francisco. 
At present, it is a thoroughly industrialized urban waterway with a shoreline of predominantly creosoted 
timber pilings, rock revetment, concrete walls, and rubble. There are small amounts (about a hundred 
linear feet) of natural and weedy vegetation, including common pickleweed (Salicomia virginica) at the 
mean high tide level, and a small, narrow band of mudflat on the southern bank of the creek mouth, 
about 2,000 feet bayward of the proposed Illinois Street Bridge site. 

Wildlife in the vicinity of the proposed bridge construction project is limited to urbanized birds and 
mammals (e.g. starling [Stumus vulgaris] and Norway rats [Rattus norvegicus]. Nearby terrestrial 
habitat consists primarily of weeds on vacant sites with rubble and abandoned machinery, some 
ornamental plantings, and various structures. There is no habitat for any terrestrial species of concern. 
There are no wetland species of vegetation at the proposed bridge site. 

The aquatic habitat is only slightly more productive. At the site of the proposed bridge construction, the 
100-foot wide channel is about forty feet deep at MHW. The northern bank is steep-sloped mud bank 
with rubble and debris to the water's edge; the southern bank is a partially dilapidated creosoted wharf 
with pilings. There is some shallow littoral habitat along the southern bank about 2,000 feet bayward of 
the proposed construction site where the shoreline is undeveloped and is composed mainly of mud. w ith 
gravel, rubble, debris and some scattered sparse growths of weeds (i.e., the mud-flat area noted above). 
This area does support some foraging diving ducks such as pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) and 
lesser scaup (Aythya affinis), both of which were observed during a site reconnaissance on February 6, 
2000. 

The generally degraded nature of the Islais Creek mouth offers little for aquatic species. A National 
Marine Fisheries Service survey conducted from 1984-1988 as part of the National Benthic Surveillance 
Project found only the white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), also known locally as king-fish, in a bottom 
sample at the mouth of Islais Creek. Some persons were observed fishing at the project site on the 
February 6 site reconnaissance - when asked, they replied that they were fishing for. and catching, king- 
fish. Special status fishes (i.e.. Federally or State listed as endangered, threatened, or of concern) 
potentially inhabiting the project area include the tidewater goby {Eucyclogobius newberryi): winter and 
spring run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha); green sturgeon {Acipenser medirostris). 
longfin smelt (Spirinichus thalechthys); and steelhead (Onchorhychus mykiss). None of these species 
are, however, known to use Islais Creek, nor the Bay environs near the proposed project because of the 
degraded water quality and lack of spawning or foraging habitat. 

The most valuable aquatic habitat at the proposed bridge site is probably the partially dilapidated 
wharf/piling along the northern bank of Islais Creek that extends from the existing Third Street bridge for 
about 1,000 feet downstream (which includes the approximately 100 feet of bank at proposed bndge 
construction site). This habitat, which provides a "hard structure" for attachment, although probably 



Case No. 1999.377E 



137 

ESA 990267 



Soulht'ni Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



F. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - SETTING 



containing residual toxicity from creosote treatments prior to its installation, probably supports a diverse 
assemblage of invertebrates including mussels, crabs, isopods, tube worms, etc. This habitat also 
provides generally good substrate for Pacific herring {Clupea harengeus pallasii) spawning. The herring 
eggs are broadcast and adhesive - vegetation, pier pilings, riprap and other hard surfaces provide the 
preferred substrate for egg attachment. Pacific herring is of concern because it is one of the last 
remaining commercial fisheries in San Francisco Bay. It is the roe, or eggs, of the herring that are 
harvested from gravid females, rather than the herring flesh itself Peak spawning months are typically 
December through February. It is likely that Pacific herring spawn in the vicinity of the proposed bridge 
construction site. 

REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT 

Environmental regulations that require approvals for the proposed bridge construction include the 
following:44 

• Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act require approval 
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This process would also invoke a consultation under 
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act). A preliminary phone conversation (Dick Butler, 
pers. comm.) with staff of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in Santa Rosa indicated 
that there were no anadromous fishes of concern known to inhabit Islais Creek. This suggests that 
the consultation would be "informal" as defined by the Act and involve no significant permit 
conditions or mitigation measures which alter the analysis presented here 

• Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, in accordance with 
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. 

• A Stream Alteration agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game. 

• Review and concurrence from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission - 
BCDC has jurisdiction over all areas of San Francisco Bay subject to tidal action, and a shoreline 
band extending 100 feet inland. BCDC also has jurisdiction over salt ponds, managed wetlands, and 
certain other waterways, and is responsible for making a determination of consistency with the 
federal Coastal Zone Management Act. 



As noted in the Project Description, the IHinois Street Bridge would also need approval from the U.S. Coast Guard. 
Consideration of this approval would be based on navigational issues rather than environmental concerns. 



Case No. 1999.377E 

* 



138 

ESA 990267 

« 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENfVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



F. BIOLOGICAL RESOL-RCES - IMPACTS 



In addition, design and construction of the bridge would be subject to approval of a bridge permit by the 
U.S. Coast Guard, which must determine the future navigational needs of Islais Creek before it issues a 
permit.'^^ 



IMPACTS 

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 

To determine the level of significance of an identified impact, the criteria outlined in the CEQA 
Guidelines were used. CEQA (Section 15206) specifies that a project shall be deemed to be of statewide, 
regional, or area-wide significance if it would substantially affect sensitive wildlife habitats including but 
not limited to riparian lands, wetlands, bays, estuaries, marshes, and habitats for rare and endangered 
species as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 903. 



IMPACT ANALYSIS 
Illinois Street Bridge 

No significant adverse impacts of the project to biological resources have been identified, and no 
mitigation measures beyond those already included in the Waterfront Plan EIR are proposed. As noted 
below, avoiding activities during the December-February Pacific herring spawning season would reduce 
non-significant impacts to this species. 

Construction of the proposed Illinois Street Bridge across Islais Creek would cause both short-term 
construction impacts and longer-term changes in habitat that would have minor effects on the 
environment of Islais Creek in the immediate vicinity of the proposed bridge project. Construction 
impacts would include primarily water quality effects from disruption of bottom sediments when 
material is dredged for placement of bridge abutments or other in-water structures. Sediment suspension 
would cause some increases in turbidity and resettling of fine sediments that can smother and interfere 
with feeding or respiration of less mobile organisms in the project area. Sessile benthic"^ invenebrates 
such as tube worms, clams, and mussels would be most susceptible to these effects. Fishes, crabs, and 
other mobile organisms would avoid the area during construction. If construction occurred during the 
Pacific herring spawning season (i.e., from December to February), any eggs attached to the 
wharf/pilings adjacent to the proposed construction site, or any newly hatched larvae, may be subject to 
smothering or other negative effects of the sediments released from dredging activities. 

In addition to the potential for physical effects from any dredging activities, resuspension of bottom 
sediments can release contaminants into the water column that are harmful to aquatic hfe. Of concern 



Because of the federal action and funding, environmental review of the bridge must also include completion of a document 
prepared by the Coast Guard pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Benthic organisms are those that live on the sea bottom. Sessile organisms do not generally move about, but rather are 
attached to hard surfaces or to the sea bottom. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



139 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waurfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

F. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - IMPACTS 

would be highly organic materials that would increase the oxygen demand and possibly reduce oxygen 
levels in the adjacent waters sufficiently to harm some sessile organisms. Other contaminants found in 
the bottom sediments, likely from storm runoff of the nearby highly industrialized landscape, would 
include heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and oil and grease. If dredging would be required, the Corps of 
Engineers would require sediment analysis to determine the potential for contamination from any 
dredged sediments and specify disposal and dredging methods to accommodate the sediment character. 
However, effects would be less than significant because of the relatively small area that would be 
affected. 

Probably the most identifiable effects of dredging would be the effects on Pacific herring spawning. 
These could be mitigated by avoiding activities during the December-February Pacific herring spawning 
season when herring are present. If activities are proposed for December through February, a qualified 
biological monitor should survey the area to determine if spawning herring are present and, if so, the 
contractor would temporarily cease work (see Mitigation Measure F.la, p. 152). Effects on resident 
sessile organisms would not be considered significant, even locally, because of the limited and degraded 
nature of this resource. 

Longer term effects from bridge construction would include any displacement of existing soft bottom or 
other natural habitat by bridge abutments and/or other structures placed in, or along the water edge. This 
would remove habitat for some burrowing invertebrates such as clams and tubeworms, which are, in 
turn, forage for resident fishes such as the white croaker. This habitat would be replaced with concrete 
and thus offer "hard surface" habitat for attached organisms such as mussels and Pacific herring eggs. If 
the wharf/pier habitat along the southern bank is removed and replaced with another material, this would 
affect the potential of that particular site to support the assemblage of "hard surface" organisms noted 
above. This might include displacing some Pacific herring spawning habitat. It is likely, however, that 
the concrete that would replace the creosoted wooden wharf/pier habitat would offer some "hard 
structure" habitat for the same kinds of organisms - and without the toxicity of creosote. Whether the 
habitat is improved or reduced in value, the change would be very minor because of the generally 
degraded quality of the existing habitat and the small quantity of change in relation to the overall habitat 
of this kind in the area (i.e., only about 100 feet of wharf/pier habitat would be affected by bridge 
construction). 

The mud/rubble northern bank of Islais Creek at the proposed bridge construction would also be replaced 
with concrete abutment. This change would eliminate a very small area of shallow littoral habitat. This 
habitat is, however, of little value to the aquatic or riparian biota in the project vicinity. The bank is 
steep and the zone of shallow water is very narrow and contains no aquatic or wetland vegetation. 
Bridge construction would limit very little foraging opportunities for aquatic birds that may use this area 
such as scaup and grebe. The new bridge and concrete abutment habitat may increase use of the area by 
rats, starlings, and other urban species better adapted and tolerant of industrialized waterfront habitat. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



140 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



m. ENVreONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 

F. BIOLOGICAL RESOLUCES - IMPACTS 

Other Impacts 

There are wetlands located in the Southern Waterfront but outside the vicinity of the proposed Dlinois 
Street bridge. The Waterfront Plan EIR notes (p. 556) that wetlands at Pier 98 (now known as Heron's 
Head Park) and at Pier 94 (Seawall Lot 352) could be adversely affected by contaminated runoff and by 
public access. Concerning the former, please see the discussion of stormwater runoff (p. 1 1 1) in 
Section III.D, Hydrology, where it is concluded that effects would be less than significant. Concerning 
the latter. Heron's Head Park has been constructed with numerous signs warning visitors to stay out of 
wildlife habitat areas, while the Pier 94 wetlands would continue to be located in areas surrounded by 
industrial uses and therefore would not be subject to public access. Furthermore, the Waterfront Plan 
calls for "reserv[ing] or improv[ing] areas which will provide opportunities for the protection of wildlife 
habitat and for passive and active recreational areas" (p. 146). Included in the Plan is the following 
conceming the Pier 94 wetlands: 

As a result of [a failure of fill adjacent to Pier 94 in the 1970s], adjacent fill material subsided, 
allowing tidal inundation and subsequent emergence of wetlands. If development of this property 
for interim or long-term uses causes filling of the wetlands, appropriate mitigation measures will 
be required. 

The project includes British Pacific Aggregates' proposed aggregate import terminal on the paved area of 
Pier 94, south of the existing wetlands, and the Port's proposed dredge material storage facility, upland 
from the wetlands. Neither of these components would encroach into the existing wetlands, and 
therefore no significant effect would occur, and no mitigation is required. 



G. GROWTH INDUCEMENT 

In general, a project would be considered growth-inducing if its implementation would result in 
substantial population increases and/or new development that might not occur if the project were not 
approved and implemented. Both the Industry Group project components and the proposed Illinois 
Street Intermodal Bridge would primarily be linked to maritime and industrial activities along San 
Francisco's Southern Waterfiront, which represent a relatively small and - in percentage terms - 
declining portion of the City's economy. 

The six project components proposed by the Industry Group include four that would relocate from 
elsewhere in San Francisco. Two Industry Group members represent the City's two largest concrete 
producers, both of which are required to relocate ft-om long-time locations due to changing land use 
patterns with the Mission Bay project area. The other two relocations - one a tour bus and commuter bus 
operator and the other, a construction materials recycler - would relocate due to expiration of leases at 
existing locations. The other Industry Group components would supply raw materials and/or finished 
products related to concrete and asphalt production.. In short, with the exception of Coach USA. the bus 
operator, all of the Industry Group project components are proposed to respond to demand for 
construction materials as a result of both private- and public-sector development projects. While a 



Case No. 1999.377E 



141 

ESA 990267 



Southern Wattrfront SEIR 



m. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND IMPACTS 



G. GROWTH INDUCEMENT 



shortage of these materials could delay and/or increase the cost of such development projects, an increase 
in the potential supply of construction materials is unlikely, in itself, to result in any change in 
development activity in San Francisco or the Bay Area. Thus, the construction-related Industry Group 
project components are not likely to have any growth-inducing effects. 

The Coach USA tour/commute bus storage and maintenance facility would be a relocation of an existing 
operation that provides services to the existing tourism industry and to public transit agencies, which 
whom the firm contracts to provide commute bus service. Because it would be a continuation of an 
existing use, and because there are several other tour bus operators in San Francisco and the region, this 
project component, too, would not be expected to result in any growth-inducing impacts. 

The Illinois Street Intermodal Bridge proposed by the Port of San Francisco would also serve existing 
facilities, namely the Port's container terminals as Pier 80 and Piers 94-96. Although the bridge would 
improve rail and truck transportation to and between these facilities, the bridge, in itself, is unlikely to 
result in any perceptible change in cargo shipping activity at the Port of San Francisco. In fact, much 
like the relocation of the existing concrete plants, the bridge would accommodate land use changes in the 
Mission Bay area, as it would provide a rail route to the North Container Terminal at Pier 80 to replace 
the existing rail route that travels north from the county line to 16th Street, within the Mission Bay area, 
and then south to Pier 80 along Illinois Street. Therefore, the Illinois Street bridge would not have any 
meaningful growth-inducing impacts. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



142 

ESA 990267 

« 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



CHAPTER IV 



MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE THE 
POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT 



In the course of project planning and design, measures have been identified that would reduce or 
eliminate potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. Some of these measures 
have been voluntarily adopted by the Port and/or private project proponents and thus are to be 
implemented as part of the project. Other measures are identified as a result of this analysis but have not 
as yet been incorporated into the project. Each mitigation measure and its status are discussed below. 

There are several items required by law that would serve to mitigate potential significant impacts; they 
are summarized here for informational purposes. These measures include: no use of mirrored glass on 
the building to reduce glare, as per City Planning Commission Resolution 9212; limitation of 
construction-related noise levels, pursuant to the San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Article 29 of the 
San Francisco Police Code, 1972); observance of regulations promulgated by the Regional Water Quality 
Control Board and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; compliance with Chapter 36 of the 
San Francisco Building Code, Work Practices for Exterior Lead-Based Paint; and observance of State 
and federal OSHA safety requirements related to handling and disposal of other hazardous materials, 
such as asbestos. 

Measures that are not required by legislation but would serve to mitigate potentially significant 
environmental impacts appear below. Also, where legal requirements exist but provide little specificity 
with regard to likely compliance actions, such as components of a Stormwater Pollution Pre\ ention Plan, 
certain specific elements of these requirements that would be required to ensure that no significant 
impact would occur are identified as mitigation. 

As described in the Introduction, this is a Supplemental EIR. Accordingly, this chapter indicates the 
disposition of mitigation measures that were identified in the 1997 Waterfront Land Use Plan (WLLV) 
FEIR and approved by the Port Commission with adoption of the Waterfront Plan in June 1997. Some of 
those measures remain applicable to the project as currently proposed and have been incorporated here, 
while others have been modified in this SEIR. Some measures do not apply to the project analyzed in 
this SEIR, principally because they were identified in reference to other components of the Waterfront 
Plan analyzed in 1997, such as areas of the waterfront other than the Southern Waterfront; thc\ arc so 
noted. Where a measure is not noted as being from the 1997 FEIR. it is newly identified in this SEIR. 



A. LAND USE 

No mitigation measures are required for the current project. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



143 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



rV. MITIGATION MEASURES 



B. TRANSPORTATION 



B. TRANSPORTATION 

MEASURE IDENTIFffiD IN THIS SEIR 

B.l To mitigate 2015 conditions, monitor traffic level of service (LOS) conditions at the intersections 
listed below in Table 23. At such time as warranted by traffic conditions (i.e., a degradation of the 
p.m. peak-hour service level to an unacceptable LOS E or F), institute the identified improvements 
or implement another measure determined at that time to be adequate to mitigate the degradation 
in level of service. 

TABLE 23 

MITIGATION MEASURES FOR INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE 



2015 Level of Service 
A.M. Peak Hr. P.M. Peak Hr. 

Project LOSvf/ Project LOSw/ 
Intersection Mitigation Measure LOS Mitig. LOS Mitig. 



Third / 25th 
Streets t 



Ilhnois / 25th 

Streets tt 
Pennsylvania / 

1-280 SB 

On-Ramp tt 
Pennsylvania / 

C6sar Chavez 

Streets 
Third / C6sar 

Ch4vez Streets 



IlHnois / C6sar 
Chavez Streets 



Amador Street / 
Cargo Way 



• Restripe the east- and westbound approaches to 
provide left-turn lanes. 

• Revise signal timing to provide protected east- and 
westbound left-tum phases. 

• Install traffic signal. 

• Install traffic signal. 



• Reconstruct the roadway to provide an exclusive 
northbound right-turn lane ("free" right-turn). 

• Add a second northbound left-tum lane and an 
additional lane in each direction to the western 
approach on Cesar Chavez Street. (This would 
require the acquisition of additional right-of-way on 
Third Street at the southeast comer of the intersection, 
where there is an existing building.) 

• Install traffic signal. 

• Restripe the northbound and southbound approaches 
to provide left-tum lanes and shared right-through 
lanes. 

• Restripe the eastbound and westbound approaches to 
provide a shared left-through lane and a shared 
through-right lane. 

• Install traffic signal. 

• Restripe the southbound Amador Way approach to 
provide a left-tum lane, a shared left-through lane, and 
a right- tum lane. 



B(C) 
B(C) 



B 
B 

D 



D 



A 
B 



t - Mitigation required only in p.m. peak hour. 

t - LOS and delay reported for overall intersection; LOS in parentheses is for critical movement, when worse than 
overall LOS. 

Source: Wilbur Smith Associates 



Case No. 1999.377E 



144 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



rv. MITIGATION MEASURES 



B. TRANSPORTATION 

B.2 At such time as specific mixed-use or other non-industrial projects generating more than 100 daily 
vehicle trips are approved and occupied at the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity Area and the 
Pier 90-94 backlands, the Port shall develop a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Plan, 
and potentially a Transportation Management Agency (TMA) that would consist of Port staff. Port 
tenants, property owners, and project occupants. The goals of the TSM Plan and the TMA shall be 
to reduce, to the maximum feasible extent, the use of single-occupancy automobile traffic and 
encourage other forms of travel to and from work, including transit, carpooling and ridesharing, 
bicycle, walking, and other means. 

B.3 The Illinois Street bridge that is proposed by the Port would improve operating conditions at Third 
Street and Cargo Way to an acceptable level of service (LOS C in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in 
the p.m. peak hour), compared to conditions without the proposed bridge. 

MEASURES FROM THE 1997 WATERFRONT PLAN FEIR, AS APPROVED BY 
THE PORT COMMISSION, JUNE 1997 (Included in the Project) 

B.4 The Port shall comply with requests from the Major Environmental Analysis section of the 

Planning Department to analyze intersection levels of service for existing and future conditions at 
intersections that may reasonably be expected to be affected by each future development project, 
and shall identify and implement appropriate mitigation measures. 

Any such transportation analysis would need to be coordinated with monitoring of the Congestion 
Management Program network, conducted biennially by the San Francisco County Transponation 
Authority as the designated Congestion Management Agency for San Francisco County. Within 
the WLUP Project Area, The Embarcadero, King, Third and Fourth Streets are all included on the 
Congestion Management Program network. A number of intersecting streets (North Point. Ba\-, 
Broadway, Washington, Clay, Cesar Chavez, and Evans west of Third) are also included on the 
CMP network. The Authority would conduct monitoring activities along these facilities, but only 
in the context of determining changes in Level of Service for arterial segments (not for individual 
intersections). Degradation of the Level of Service for one or more individual intersections within 
an arterial segment, to Level of Service "F' or to below some other designation deemed to be 
acceptable, could also degrade the segment Level of Service. The degree of impact to the segment 
may not be sufficient for the Transportation Authority to identify a "deficiency" under the CMP 
process (Level of Service "F' for the entire segment), even though the Port or City could impose 
mitigation requirements for developers of projects that would have a significant impact on 
individual intersections. Based on the transportation analysis for this EIR, cumulative 
development along the Waterfront might cause degradation of a particular segment of the CMP 
network to fall to "F," thereby triggering a finding of deficiency requiring formulation of a 
Deficiency Plan, and implementation of that Plan under the CMP processes identified by the 
Transportation Authority. The Authority could, in this circumstance, identify the Port as the lead 
agency for development of the Deficiency Plan and for implementation of any corrective 
measures, and the Port could require sponsors of specific development projects that contribute to 
cumulative congestion to participate in improvement and mitigation measures. (7997 FEIR 
Measure D.4) 

B.5 To help induce shifts from vehicles to transit and thereby partially mitigate local intersection 
impacts and regional highway impacts, the Port could require and/or institute Transportation 
Demand Management Programs among developers of major trip generators, as a condition of lease 



Case No. 1999. 377 E 



145 

ESA 990267 



SiHithcni Watrrfrofil SEIR 



IV. MITIGATION MEASURES 



B. TRANSPORTATION 



approval. This would apply in particular to future Port development at Pier 70 and the Pier 90-94 
backlands. 

Such programs typically target primarily commute trips, with various educational, assistance and 
incentives measures to encourage carpooling and vanpooling, and transit use. These measures may 
be accompanied by such "disincentives" to low-occupant private vehicle use as restricting the 
amounts and/or location of parking made available to employees, and charging higher fees for all- 
day parking. Also typical are measures designed to shift time of commute travel to the "shoulders" 
of the peak, and/or to encourage less trip making through alternative work schedules and 
teleconraiuting. The effectiveness of these programs is variable, but they are most appropriate and 
effective when there are substantial constraints to vehicular travel, circulation and storage coupled 
with suitable options such as excellent transit accessibility. San Francisco in general, and its 
downtown and portions of the waterfront in particular, exhibit this combination of factors. 

The Port could also design and implement similar programs which would target non-commute 
travel. An example of the type of measure which might be included is the issuance of discount 
admission to some uses, or reductions in the price of services and/or merchandise, upon 
presentation of a valid transit transfer or other proof of transit use payment. Additionally, a free 
shuttle along The Embarcadero could be a part of this type of program, and would help to alleviate 
local auto congestion. ( 7997 FEIR Measure D-7) 

C. AIR QUALITY 

Measure B.3, above, would reduce but not eliminate the project's contribution to potentially significant 
air quality impacts. The mitigation measures in this section would further reduce but not eliminate the 
project's contribution to potentially significant air quality impacts. 

MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT 

C.l Each of the Industry Group construction aggregate industry project components, which would 
represent "stationary sources" of particulate emissions, shall include "best available control 
technology" (BACT) to control emissions, consistent with current regulations. For aggregate- 
handling operations (Bode Gravel, Mission Valley Rock, RMC Pacific, British Pacific 
Aggregates), this includes maintaining a moisture content in the aggregate that is high enough to 
eliminate PM-10 "fugitive" emissions (wind-blown dust that could otherwise escape into the 
surrounding air). A water spray system shall be installed at each aggregate-handling facility, 
including Bode Gravel, Mission Valley Rock, RMC Pacific, and British Pacific Aggregates. Fine 
aggregate material (sand) shall be maintained with a moisture content of approximately 5 percent, 
because such material with a moisture content of 4.5 percent or more produces virtually no fugitive 
emissions. Coarse aggregate (gravel) shall be kept damp on the surface, which would also 
effectively eliminate fugitive dust. Aggregate shall be stored in bunkers, rather than open piles, 
with water spray (including the use of surfactants, as necessary, to bind the water and dust to the 
aggregate) applied to maintain adequate moisture content to control emissions. ISG Resources, 
which would handle fly ash, a finer, more powdery material than aggregate, shall install BACT 
dust collection equipment to accommodate truck and rail transport and shall use pneumatic 
equipment to control dust emissions during the transfer of fly ash. 



Case No. 1999.377E 

* 



146 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



rv. MITIGATION MEASURES 

C. AIR QUALITY 

C.2 The asphalt plant proposed by Mission Valley Rock (and potentially the British Pacific asphalt 

plant) shall include controls on the drum mixer where the asphalt cement and aggregate are mixed. 
Drum mixer(s) shall be fired with natural gas, consistent with Best Available Control Technology 
(BACT) recommendations, and particulate emissions from the aggregate drying and mixing 
process shall be controlled with a fabric filter, also consistent with BACT. Such filters can achieve 
control efficiency of greater than 99 percent. 

C.3 Consistent with the City's Clean Air Program (established by Ordinance 258-99, adopted 

October 15, 1999), it is City policy to "foster, promote, and encourage the use of low emission 
[alternative fuel vehicles] and [zero emission vehicles] by developing infrastructures to support the 
use of these vehicles." Under the ordinance, the City is to (1) assess the need for a network of 
natural gas fueling stations accessible to the public; (2) site and develop at least five such facilities, 
by public and/or private entities; (3) install 50 publicly accessible electric vehicle charging stations 
in City garages, lots, or other sites; (4) develop a plan for additional charging stations and related 
infrastructure; (5) buy and lease ultra-low and zero emission vehicles for City department use; (6) 
identify and convert diesel bus lines to electric service; (7) develop a plan to phase out older diesel 
buses; (8) develop a plan and incentives to encourage larger private vehicle fleets to convert their 
fleets to very low or zero emission vehicles; and (9) develop a car sharing program in high density 
neighborhoods. 

Consistent with the City's Clean Air Program, the Port shall require that all tenants make a good 
faith effort to engage in operational practices sensitive to the environment and the neighboring 
community. In furtherance of this, the Port shall require that tenants operating a fleet of vehicles 
investigate the potential for use of low- or zero emission vehicles and implement measures to 
reduce vehicle emissions to the maximum feasible extent. Options may include, but not 
necessarily be limited to, the use of low-emission diesel fuel (including low-sulfur diesel); the use 
of catalytic particulate traps for diesel-powered engines that are currently under study by the 
California Air Resources Board; the use of other emerging technologies to reduce diesel particulate 
emissions; and use of electric vehicles. The Port shall also require that tenants operating diesel- 
powered stationary equipment investigate similar options. Tenants shall investigate retrofitting 
existing engines and purchase of new engines. The Port shall further require that tenants who 
work with independent trucking contractors encourage those contractors to make similar efforts, 
including, if reasonably feasible, providing such truckers with economic incentives to retrofit 
equipment or take other measures as may be necessary to use low-emission fuels. As an economic 
incentive to minimize diesel emissions from Port property, the Port shall contribute towards the 
incremental costs incurred by its tenants for Port-approved equipment and improvements in 
furtherance of this measiu^e. Finally, the Port shall establish a schedule by which tenants described 
above shall report to the Port on progress in investigating reduced-emission engines. 

C.4 At such time as specific mixed-use or other non-industrial projects generating more than 100 daih 
vehicle trips are approved and occupied at the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opponunity Area and the 
Pier 90-94 backlands, the Port shall develop a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Plan, 
and potentially a Transportation Management Agency (TMA) that would consist of Port staff. Port 
tenants, property owners, and project occupants. The goals of the TSM Plan and the TMA shall be 
to reduce, to the maximum feasible extent, the use of single-occupancy automobile traffic and 
encourage other forms of travel to and from work, including transit, carpooling and ridcshanng. 
bicycle, walking, and other means. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



147 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



IV. MmGATION MEASURES 

C. AIR QUALITY 

REVISED MEASURE FROM THE 1997 WATERFRONT PLAN FEIR, AS 
APPROVED BY THE PORT COMMISSION, JUNE 1997 (Included in the Project) 

C.5 The Port shall require that project sponsors direct construction contractors to implement a dust 
abatement program to reduce the contribution of project construction to local PM-10 
concentrations. Elements of this program, which is currently applied to all Port tenants, include 
the following: 

• Water internal roadways and unpaved construction areas just prior to the morning and 
evening peak traffic periods (to limit the potential for major roadway traffic to entrain dust), 
limit speeds to 10 mph, and sweep paved internal roads after the evening peak period. 

• In addition, water active sites (e.g., where demolition, excavation or other earth work is 
underway) at least twice per day. Increase the frequency of watering when wind speeds 
exceed 15 miles per hour. Suspend all excavating and grading operation when instantaneous 
gusts exceed 25 miles per hour. 

• Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 

• Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply soil binders to exposed stockpiles of sand, gravel, 
and dirt. 

• Install gravel at construction equipment entrances to unpaved areas to prevent tracking of 
dirt and mud onto streets. 

• Sweep paved access roads, parking areas, and construction staging areas, at the end of day 
(with water sweepers), and sweep adjacent City streets if any visible soil material is carried 
over to these streets. 

• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials. Maintain at least six inches 
of freeboard between the top of the load and the top of the trailer. 

• Sweep up dirt or debris spilled onto paved surfaces inmiediately to reduce resuspension of 
particulate matter through vehicle movement over these surfaces. 

• Designate a person or persons to oversee the implementation of a comprehensive dust 
control program and to increase watering, as necessary. 

• Maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize particulates from exhaust 
emissions. During construction, require contractors to operate trucks and equipment only 
when necessary. Equipment should be kept in good condition and well-tuned, to minimize 
exhaust emissions. 

Ordinance 175-91, passed by the Board of Supervisors on May 6, 1991, requires that non-potable 
water be used for dust control activities. Therefore, the project sponsor shall require that the 
contractor(s) obtain reclaimed water from the Clean Water Program for this purpose. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



148 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



rv. MITIGATION MEASURES 



C. AIR QU.ALITY 



This mitigation measure also would reduce demolition-related impacts regarding lead paint 
chips/lead dust. The project sponsor shall also be required to comply with Chapter 36 of the 
San Francisco Building Code, Work Practices for Exterior Lead-Based Paint, enforced by the 
San Francisco Department of Building Inspection. 

No other feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce the project's total regional 
emissions to a level below Bay Area Air Quality Management District thresholds, or eliminate the 
project's contribution to potentially significant cumulative impacts from all existing (unquantified) and 
future (unknown) emissions sources. 

D. HYDROLOGY 

MEASURES INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PROJECT 

D.l For construction sites of less than five acres of disturbed area, the contractors shall be required to 
prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) similar to that required 
under the statewide General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction 
Activity. The SWPPP would include site-specific information to identify and evaluate sources of 
pollutants associated with industrial activities and to identify and implement site-specific best 
management practices to reduce or prevent pollutants associated with industrial activities in 
stormwater discharges. Best management practices may be non-structural (e.g., activity schedules, 
maintenance procedures, prohibitions of practices) or structural (e.g., treatment measures, runoff 
controls, overhead coverage). Elements of the SWPPP shall include the following: 

• measures for erosion and sediment controls 

• methods for construction waste handling and disposal, and 

• post-construction erosion and sediment control requirements. 

D.2 To minimize the potential for water quality degradation from stormwater runoff, the Port shall 
require that all tenants and developers, including interim lessees such as the Industrv' Group 
members, implement source control Best Management Practices consistent with those identified in 
the Industrial / Commercial Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook (Stormwater 
Quality Task Force, 1993). Measures shall include, but are not limited to, the following (some of 
which are proposed as part of one or more Industry Group components): 

• prohibiting discharge of process water to storm drains; 

• for Industry Group components that would use water in dust control, creation of settling basins 
or similar features that would allow sediment to be removed from water prior to reuse and/or 
discharge; 

• employing appropriate containment measures for fuel, asphalt cement, and other hazardous 
materials stored on-site, to capture potential spills (including at on-site fueling areas); 

• installing and maintaining grease and sediment traps at vehicle maintenance and washing 
areas to prevent contaminated runoff from entering the storm drains or Bay; 



Case No. 1999.377E 



149 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



rV. MITIGATION MEASURES 

D. HYDROLOGY 

• installation of sediment containment systems around outdoor aggregate storage facilities to 
limit sediment entering stormwater runoff, and covering such storage areas if feasible to 
limit stormwater infiltration; 

• creation of a designated wash-out area for concrete trucks to prevent concrete slurry from 
reaching the Bay; and 

• cover any open conveyors in use over the Bay (i.e., between piers and ships and barges) to 
minimize the potential for direct sediment spill to the Bay. 

REVISED MEASURES FROM THE 1997 WATERFRONT PLAN FEIR, AS 
APPROVED BY THE PORT COMMISSION, JUNE 1997 (Included in the Project) 

D.3 As part of permit and lease requirements for future Port development projects, runoff fi^om 

stormwater at new or re-developed facilities located outside of the City's combined sewer system 
shall be, at a minimum, subject to appropriate treatment such as on-site oil/water separators and/or 
sediment traps, depending on the nature of the pollutants that may be in the runoff, so that 
stormwater runoff is treated prior to discharge and that there is no direct, untreated discharge to the 
Bay or Islais Creek. Stormwater runoff from future Port development sites shall not be directed to 
the City's combined system, as originally contemplated in the Waterfront Plan EIR, and the 
volume of stormwater flows from the project area to the City's combined sewer system shall 
remain the same as at present, unless the increased flow to the combined system would result in no 
additional volume of combined sewer overflows. 

D.4 Sponsors of individual project components, including members of the Industry Group, shall be 

required to implement appropriate Best Management Practices for stormwater pollution prevention 
throughout the life of each lease and shall be required to monitor stormwater quality in accordance 
with the requkement of the statewide General Permit for Discharge of Industrial Stormwater. 

D. 5 Sponsors of individual project components, including members of the Industry Group, shall 

conduct water quality monitoring during construction of facilities on or adjacent to the Bay to 
minimize effects of construction activities on water quality. In order to minimize potential for 
spills, construction materials or debris to enter the Bay and affect water quality, site specific 
construction methods and precautions, such as limiting activities on days of strong winds, could be 
included in the contractor's construction specifications to minimize effects on water quality. 
Demolition of structures with lead-based paint should include physical precautions to ensure that 
paint dust and chips do not enter the Bay. 

E. HAZARDS 

MEASURES INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PROJECT 

E.l Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials or Petroleum Products 

In accordance with the Hazardous Materials Ordinance, the sponsor of each Industry Group or Port 
project component shall ensure that a Hazardous Materials Business Plan is prepared for each of 
the project components involving the use of petroleum products or hazardous materials. The plan 
would specify methods for handling and storage of these including containment, site layouts, and 
emergency response and notification procedures for a spill or release. 



Case No. 1999.377E 150 Southern Waterfront SEIR 

ESA 990267 



rv . MITIGATION MEASURES 

E. RAZARDS 

The project sponsor(s) shall ensure that a Spill Control and Countermeasure Plan is prepared for 
any project involving the aboveground storage of petroleum products. The plan would include 
requirements for appropriate spill containment or equipment to divert spills from sensitive areas, a 
discussion of facility-specific requirements for the storage system, inspections and a record 
keeping system, security for the system, and personnel training. The project sponsor(s) would also 
comply with the state requirement that above-ground storage tanks subject to federal regulations 
are registered with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

E.2 Hazardous Materials in Soil 

E.2a Because the Bode Gravel and Mission Valley Rock projects would be constructed bayward of the 
historic high tide line and would involve the excavation of at least 50 cubic yards of soil, the 
sponsors of those components shall ensure that the contractors comply with the requirements of 
Article 22A, "Analyzing the Soil for Hazardous Wastes." In accordance with the approved site 
mitigation report for this project component, the site would be capped with an asphalt or concrete 
slab and structures. Upon completion of capping, a certification report would be prepared to 
document construction activities and a maintenance report would be prepared specifying 
procedures to be followed to control exposure to the subsurface soil following construction of the 
proposed project. These reports would be submitted to the San Francisco Department of Public 
Health for review and approval to ensure regulatory compliance. 

For any other Industry Group or Port-sponsored project components for which Article 22A would 
apply (including the Illinois Street bridge, if applicable), a site history report, soil investigation, 
and soil analysis report would be completed to identify potential hazardous materials at this site. 

If indicated by the results of the soil investigation, the project sponsor would ensure that the 
contractors for each project prepare a Site Mitigation Report in compliance with Article 22.'\ if 
warranted by the levels of hazardous materials identified in the soil. The plan would include 
measures for the handling of soil produced during excavation, to control dust and runoff during 
construction, and to characterize soil for off-site disposal purposes. Upon completion of 
construction, the project sponsor would ensure that the construction contractors prepare a 
certification report certifying that either (1) no hazardous wastes present in the soil present an 
unacceptable risk and that no mitigations are required; or (2) all mitigation measures specified in 
the site mitigation report have been completed and that completion of the mitigation measures has 
been verified through follow up sampling and analysis, if required. All reports would be submitted 
to the San Francisco Department of Public Health (DPH) for review and approval to ensure 
regulatory compliance. 

The project sponsor shall prepare and submit to DPH a site-specific Safety and Health Plan (SHP) 
that would address worker safety concerns resulting from potential contaminants on the site. The 
SHP would include provisions for responding to unknown hazardous materials site conditions that 
could be encountered during construction. 

If the soil investigation demonstrates that hazardous wastes present in the soil could be at levels 
that pose an unacceptable health risk, the project sponsor would ensure that appropriate site 
investigations and risk evaluations are performed to evaluate potential human health risks related 
to any hazardous substances left in the soil or groundwater after completion of construction. The 
investigations, risk evaluations, and any required remedial actions would be implemented under 
the oversight of the appropriate regulatory agency(ies) to ensure compliance with applicable laws 
and that the public health and safety are protected. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



151 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



rv. MITIGATION MEASURES 



E. HAZARDS 

E.2b For all projects where subsurface contamination is identified, the project sponsor would ensure that 
from the time that ground surfaces are exposed until the time that all remedial activities have been 
completed, a fence is erected around the area where chemicals have been identified in the soil and 
site access is restricted to necessary personnel. Warning signs prohibiting access by the general 
public onto the project site would be posted at all construction access points. Access would be 
limited to authorized personnel only. 

Dust-control measures applicable for air quality impacts would also minimize the potential public 
health impact associated with dust emissions and air quality pollutants. (See also Air Quality 
Mitigation Measures.) 

MEASURE PROPOSED BY THE PORT AS PART OF THE PROJECT 
E.3 Soil Disposal 

The Port shall contract for, or require that Port tenant(s) contract for, disposal of any portion of the 
soil pile on the Bode and Mission Valley Rock sites at Pier 92 that cannot be reused, with approval 
of the San Francisco Department of Public Health, for construction projects in accordance with 
applicable waste disposal regulations. 

REVISED MEASURE FROM THE 1997 WATERFRONT PLAN FEIR, AS 
APPROVED BY THE PORT COMMISSION, JUNE 1997 (Included in the Project) 

E.4 Hazardous Building Materials 

The project sponsor for each Industry Group component and each future Port development 
component involving demolition or renovation of existing facilities shall ensure that hazardous 
building material survey(s) for asbestos, PCB -containing equipment (including transformers, 
elevator equipment, and other applicable equipment), hydraulic oils, fluorescent lights, and lead- 
based paint is conducted prior to the start of demolition or renovation, for each such project 
component. The survey(s) would be completed by a Registered Environmental Assessor or a 
registered engineer prior to construction or demolition activities. If any friable asbestos-containing 
materials or lead-containing materials are identified, adequate abatement practices, such as 
containment and/or removal, would be implemented prior to demolition or renovation. Detailed 
requirements for the assessment, abatement, and disposal of hazardous building materials are presented 
in Appendix F. Any PCB-containing equipment or fluorescent lights containing mercury vapors 
would also be removed and disposed of properly. 

Any hazardous materials discovered through building survey(s) would be abated according to 
federal, state, and local laws and regulations. In particular, the project sponsors will be required to 
comply BAAQMD requirements for the removal of friable and non-fHable asbestos containing 
materials as well as other requirements of Cal/OSHA, BAAQMD and the Contractors Licensing 
Board for abatement of asbestos prior to demolition. 



Case No. 1999.377E 152 Southern Waterfront SEIR 

ESA 990267 



rv. MITIGATION MEASURES 



F. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 



F. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 



REVISED MEASURES FROM THE 1997 WATERFRONT PLAN FEIR, AS 
APPROVED BY THE PORT COMMISSION, JUNE 1997 (Included in the Project) 

F.la The Port could limit dredging operations and other construction activity in connection with the 

Illinois Street Bridge to between March 1 and November 30 to eliminate any potentially significant 
impacts of dredging or pier repair/replacement on the Pacific herring fishery. The Port would 
specify in construction contracts that, in exceptional cases where dredging operations or bridge 
construction must conflict with the herring season, the following conditions must be fulfilled: 

• A professional fisheries biologist or other individual sufficiently competent to identify 

herring spawning activity would monitor the project site daily at any time when dredging or 
other in-water construction activity were taking place. 



• In the event that the on-site monitor detects herring spawning at, or within 200 meters of 
dredging or other in-water construction activity, the monitor would immediately notify the 
Environmental Review Officer and the project construction manager, who would hall the 
dredging or other construction activity for a minimum of 14 days, or until the monitor 
determines that the hatch has been completed and larval herring have left the site. The 
dredging or other construction activity may resume thereafter. 

F.lb Project sponsors of Industry Group project components would similarly limit dredging operations 
and pier repair/replacement to between March 1 and November 30 to eliminate any potentially 
significant impacts of dredging or pier repair/replacement on the Pacific herring fisher\'. In 
exceptional cases where dredging operations or major pier repair/replacement operations (beyond 
routine maintenance) must conflict with the herring season, the project sponsor(s) would consult 
with the permitting agencies, including but not necessarily limited to the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, State Department of Fish and Game, 
and Regional Water Quality Control Board. The sponsor(s) would comply with specific 
monitoring requirements established by these and other agencies to avoid impacts on the herring 
fishery. 

F.2 Prior to demolition or renovation of any abandoned building between August 15 and October 15. 
or between February 1 and May 1, project sponsor(s) would ensure that survey(s) are conducted 
during the same period by a qualified bat biologist. If no Townsend's western big-eared bats are 
found during the survey(s), no additional mitigation is required. 

If Townsend's western big-eared bat, a California Species of Special Concern, is found during an 
August - October survey, appropriate exclusion devices approved by CDFG & USFWS should be 
installed by a qualified bat biologist. Once the bats have been excluded, demolition may occur. 

If Townsend's western big-eared bats are found during a February - May survey, demolition 
should not take place until the end of the nursery season in August. Exclusion devices should be 
placed by a qualified bat biologist in accordance with CDFG and USFWS. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



153 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waierfroni SEIR 



IV. MITIGATION MEASURES 



G. GEOLOGY 



G. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY 

REVISED MEASURES FROM THE 1997 WATERFRONT PLAN FEIR, AS 
APPROVED BY THE PORT COMMISSION, JUNE 1997 (Included in the Project) 

G.l A geotechnical investigation should be conducted under the direction of a Geotechnical Engineer 
prior to permitting any new construction, including construction of the proposed Illinois Street 
bridge, or reuse of an existing structure for new uses that could increase the load of the structure so 
as to trigger the requirements of Section 3403.6 of the San Francisco Building Code. The 
investigation should be performed to evaluate subsurface conditions and existing foundation 
conditions at the site. The geotechnical investigation should evaluate the potential hazards such as 
settlement, ground shaking, ground rupture, liquefaction, subsidence, slope stability, and lateral 
spreading. Recommendations to mitigate geologic hazards should be made to the project's 
structural engineer regarding the design of new foundations, upgrading of existing foundations, 
seismic design, and mitigation of geologic hazards. ( 1997 FEIR Measure I-l ) 

G.2 To minimize hazards to building occupants from non-structural damage, the Port should require all 
Port facilities and tenants to carry out the following measures at a minimum: heavy objects should 
be attached to secure walls and floors, and light, loose objects should be placed to minimize their 
potential to move or overturn; large storage containers should not be loosely stacked, and those 
stored on shelves should have appropriate restraints or other means to prevent them from tipping or 
sliding off the shelves. 

Heavy objects like freezers, boilers, chillers, laboratory equipment, battery racks and electrical 
transformers, heavy storage cabinets, tanks, safes, oversize file cabinets, etc., should be firmly 
secured to floors and walls to prevent their falling or sliding. All equipment using natural gas 
should be anchored. Care should be taken to avoid placement of such objects where they could 
topple or move and block exit doors. ( 1997 FEIR Measure I-7b) 

G.3 Because of the large number of employees and visitors in some facilities potentially on-site in an 
earthquake and the likelihood that the facilities will be needed to supply emergency response 
services, high-occupancy facilities should be required to store emergency response supplies and 
equipment on-site for a 72-hour reserve. 

It is likely that emergency response systems in San Francisco and in the Bay Area as a whole 
would be overloaded in the immediate aftermath of a large earthquake. Because of the large 
population that may be present in the Project Area in an earthquake (especially under 
Alternatives A and B), it likely would be necessary for offices, hotels, industrial facilities and 
residents to be relatively self-sufficient for a period of a day or two until supply systems can be 
restored. Observations from large earthquakes, such as Mexico City in 1985 and Kobe in 1995, 
confirm that most supply services for water, power, food and medical supplies would be 
unavailable for a minimum of 72 hours after the earthquake. For this reason, medical supplies 
needed for common earthquake injuries, stretchers, blankets, flashlights and at least 72 hours' 
potable water and non-perishable food supply should be stored at easily accessible locations in 
offices, business complexes, hotels and large residential structures. Heavy crow-bars, other heavy 
tools, and hand-operated loudspeakers should be kept in easily accessible and well-marked 
locations in every building and in large parking structures. ( 1997 FEIR Measure I-7c) 

G.4 Non-structural interior elements (ceilings, partitions, light fixtures, HVAC, pipes, etc.) should be 
designed to withstand strong ground shaking and remain intact. This would be accomplished, for 



Case No. 1999.377E 154 Southern Waterfront SEIR 

ESA 990267 



rv. MITIGATIOX MEASURES 

G. GEOLOGY 

example, by selecting lightweight materials and firmly securing them to structural elements of the 
building and by using flexible connections for pipes. ( 1997 FEIR Measure I-7d) 

G.5 Require the use of flexible utility connections and fasten water heaters to walls. Require the 

installation of automatic shut-off valves in all natural gas pipelines and provide similar emergency 
shut-off valves for other gas (oxygen and nitrogen) systems or as otherwise required by the 
San Francisco Fire Department or the Port fire marshal. Do not install automatic shut-off valves 
for water supplies. Require the posting of room/building layout diagrams that indicate the location 
of shut-off valves for natural gas. ( 1997 FEIR Measure 1-7 e) 

G.6 Require fire extinguishers in all rooms and hallways and adjacent to all exit doors (including 

stairwell exits), as required by the San Francisco Fire Code. Require that cabinets are not placed 
where they could overturn and block access to fire extinguishers. Require the training of all staff 
of offices, hotels, industrial facilities, restaurants and entertainment complexes in the use of fire 
extinguishers. ( 7997 FEIR Measure l-7f) 

G.7 The Port has prepared an earthquake preparedness plan and an earthquake response plan for its 

facilities. The Port shall assist its tenants in preparing earthquake preparedness and response plans 
covering all uses with more than 100 employees and public uses accommodating more than 
100 persons, in compliance with San Francisco Fire Department requirements. (7997 FEIR 
Measure 1-7 g) 

Some of the key provisions of an earthquake preparedness plan include the following: 

• Assign responsibilities for disaster control, including primary responsible individuals and 
back-ups. 

• Ensure that individuals with assigned responsibilities are aware of their proper roles (e.g.. 
medical response, fire response and coordination with the Fire Department, locating the 
whereabouts of all individuals within an assigned area/unit, conducting periodic inspections 
to reduce earthquake hazards within individual work areas, and maintaining a stock of 
necessary emergency response supplies and equipment). 

• Train all employees in self-protective behavioral response during an earthquake. Train all 
employees in the use of fire extinguishers. 

• Inform all employees about the location of emergency response equipment and supplies. 

• Train all employees to report to an emergency supervisor at a designated safe location 
inmiediately after an earthquake. 

• Provide free and accessible general first aid training. Training for injuries related to spills of 
hazardous substances during an earthquake is included in OSHA-required Contingency 
Plans. 

• Conduct an earthquake drill at least once a year. 

Some elements of an emergency response plan include the following: 

• Assign all employees a predesignated place and individual to report to immediately after an 
earthquake. 

• Establish a search and rescue plan within designated areas. 

• Establish designated areas at or near the ground floor for short-term occupancy by 
employees or, alternatively, set up shelters in outside areas in a safe place. 

• Provide battery-operated radios and televisions in these areas. 



Case No. 1999. 377 E 



155 

ESA 990267 



Southern W'atfrfront SEIR 



rv. MITIGATION MEASURES 

G. GEOLOGY 

• Establish a chain-of -command and operations center for dealing with fires, spills, and 
damaged structures. 

• Assign individuals to coordinate with the Fire Department if they arrive on-site to respond to 
a fire. The Fire Department may have additional requirements for emergency preparedness 
and response. 

• Design response plans for an objective of near-regular medical service capability. (7997 
FEIR Measures 1-7 g and I-7h) 

While earthquake hazards could not be entirely eliminated, implementation of Measures G.2 
through G.8 would reduce the hazards of an earthquake to an acceptable level of risk, within the 
requirements of the City of San Francisco. 

G.8 The Port should take feasible steps to minimize potential earthquake safety risks related to 
hazardous materials in its operations and that of its tenants. 

Specific steps may include appropriate seismic safety provisions, such as prohibiting the storage of 
hazardous materials in containers above head level (about five feet); anchoring hazardous 
materials shelves and heavy equipment to walls and floors; constructing heavy doors that are 
designed to remain shut during earthquake vibrations; providing hand-operable closures for vents 
and air ducts; and other provisions as discussed in the Association of Bay Area Governments' 
Hazardous Material Problems in Earthquakes: A Guide to Their Cause and Mitigation. Other 
measures should be implemented as recommended by the San Francisco Fire Department and/or 
Health Department. Additionally, The Port has prepared an Emergency Procedures Manual for 
Port operations and periodically revise it to be consistent with changes in the facilities and 
operations. Tenants who use or store hazardous materials are required by the local Hazardous 
Materials Ordinance to develop a hazardous materials Business Plan, which includes emergency 
procedures. (7997 FEIR Measure I-8a) 

G.9 The Port should require tenants to design all facilities for storage of hazardous chemicals in 

containers, such as cabinets, shelves, and drawers, to minimize potential hazards in an earthquake, 
in accordance with Fire Department and/or Health Department requirements. 

Storage facilities should include safety lips to contain spills and to reduce the likelihood of 
contents falling. All shelves and cabinets should be secured to a wall or ceiling. All cabinets and 
drawers should be provided with positive latches that would not open during earthquake motions 
and vibrations. Compressed gas cylinders, including empty ones, should be secured to fixed 
features. Gas cylinders should be secured at two locations along their vertical axis, one in the top 
one-third of the cylinder and another in the bottom third of the cylinder. 

The Port should require storage of hazardous chemicals in approved containers and separation of 
incompatible chemicals in separate storage areas. If chemical storage is vented by an electric fan, 
an alternative (emergency) means of ventilation should be provided, which may be a mechanical 
(non-powered) vent. ( 7997 F£'77? Measure I -8b) 

Implementation of Measures G.9 and G.IO would reduce hazardous materials-related non- 
structural safety hazards of an earthquake to an acceptable level of risk. 

G.IO Project sponsors, including the Port, should employ an engineer qualified in earthquake 

engineering to incorporate into the final design of individual facilities developed under the WLUP 
all economically feasible engineering methods to reduce the potential for loss of life-line services. 
This may include methods to improve unstable ground conditions, to strengthen infrastructure to 
be more resistant to earthquake induced ground movements, and to organize and prepare for 



Case No. 1999.377E 



156 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



I\ . MITIGATION MEASURES 



G GEOLOGY 

earthquake response. While specialized techniques for ground improvement to reduce liquefaction 
hazards likely are not practical or economically feasible over large areas, ground improvements 
within selected strategic sites may result in substantial hazard reduction to utility systems. In such 
areas a variety of ground stabilization techniques may be considered, such as compaction grouting, 
placement of stone columns, and deep soil mixing. ( 1997 FEIR Measure I -9a, Revised) 

G.ll For individual development projects, the use of flexible connections for utility lines ma\' be needed 
(see Mitigation Measure G.7). Back-up supplies of water, power generators, and battery-operated 
telecommunications equipment may need to be installed (or enlarged at the existing facilities). 
The engineer should recommend the appropriate approach (e.g., separate facilities and equipment 
or upgrading existing facilities) for all Project Area facilities. ( 1997 FEIR Measure I-9b) 

G.12 The Port, in cooperation and compliance with the City's Office of Emergency Services. Fire 
Department and Police Department, should plan routes of alternative emergency access to 
development sites. 

Available routing for emergency response vehicles needs to be quickly assessed following an 
earthquake and conveyed immediately to ambulance drivers, fire persons and police officers. 
Consistent with the City's Civil Defense and Disaster Operation Plan, information should be 
provided about routing to hospitals including consideration of streets blocked by debris, collapsed 
or unsafe bridges, and streets rendered impassable by road damage. To prepare for such possible 
loss of access, the City should consider developing alternative routing concepts to reach the 
hospitals and familiarize ambulance drivers, fire persons and police with the alternates. (1997 
FEIR Measure I-9c) 

G.13 An inspection schedule should be developed and followed for regular inspection and evaluation of 
the condition of the piers. In conjunction with the inspection schedule, a maintenance and repair 
schedule should be developed and implemented, coordinated with the Port's Capital Plan. (1997 
FEIR Measure I- 10a) 

G-14 All open sub-grade structures and pits, whether temporary or permanent, should be provided with 
protection against damage resulting ft"om adjustment to buoyant and lateral deforming soils. 

All construction and design of such projects should provide specific measures to prevent hazards 
to people and damage to proposed or nearby structures that could result from these adjustments. In 
some cases, a specific geotechnical investigation may be required for permanent open sub-grade 
structures and open underground structures. ( 7997 FEIR Measure 1-2 ) 

G-15 Prior to any construction that would require dewatering, the applicant should submit and the Port 
should review a dewatering and excavation plan and an analysis of potential impact to adjacent 
properties to determine whether the potential exists to damage off-site property. 

As a standard practice, the Port should require an application package that will indicate the amount 
of dewatering and the period over which dewatering may be required. The package should include 
a survey of adjacent structures with information concerning their age. foundation type, 
construction type, status as a historic landmark or structure of special significance, and record of 
any existing damage. The package should also identify adjacent City streets, the location of buried 
infrastructure, and an evaluation of groundwater quality, flow patterns, and disposal. In addition, 
the application should indicate any specific mitigation measures incorporated into the project to 
minimize hazards to structures and groundwater. (7997 FEIR Measure l-3a) 



Case No. I999.377E 



157 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



rv. MITIGATION MEASURES 

G. GEOLOGY 

G-16 To minimize dewatering hazards, construction projects should provide shoring of all excavation pit 
walls, and provide supports to adjacent structures, including foundation support if needed. (7997 
FEIR Measure I-3b) 

G-17 All applicants for construction projects involving dewatering (as well as vibration-inducing pile 
driving) should post a surety bond or other equivalent mechanism to cover the costs of potential 
damage to off-site property from construction. (The bond is included in this EIR as a mitigation 
measure because of the uncertainty that other mitigation measures would protect off-site property 
from damage. If needed, the bond would be used to repair off-site damage and thus mitigate that 
impact.) The amount of the bond would be determined by the Port. ( 1997 FEIR Measure I-3c) 

G-18 Prior to any construction that would require dewatering or pile driving, the Port should notify all 
property owners within 200 feet of the proposed construction activity at least 30 days prior to the 
date of initiating demolition or excavation, whichever is the first activity to occur. The Port should 
provide an opportunity for all property owners to comment on the construction activity and allow 
them the opportunity to have their property photo-documented for its pre-constniction condition. 
The Port is responsible for inspection of construction activities and should note any observations 
of proven or suspected subsidence damage on the site and at adjacent sites. This measure would 
allow adjacent property owners to document the condition of their property prior to initiation of an 
activity that could result in damage. If damage does occur, the measure would help to identify the 
extent of the damage caused by construction within the Project Area. ( 1997 FEIR Measure I-3d) 

G-19 For impacts from pile driving, the Port and project sponsors should implement Measures G-16 
through G-19. (7997 FEIR Measure 1-4) 

G-20 Proposed new dredging activities (deeper than the designed depth or in different locations than 

ongoing maintenance dredging) should be reviewed by an engineering geologist to assess potential 
hazards to Port facilities. Dredging programs in areas with a past history or high potential for 
lateral movement of Bay Mud should be designed to hold a slope without readjustment or slippage. 
(This measure would apply to suction and clamshell dredging.) 

To minimize slope failure in the Bay sediments, dredged cuts should be properly designed and 
dredged, as recommended by the engineering geologist. Typically, subestuarine slopes in soft Bay 
sediments are cut at 3: 1 to 6: 1 (horizontal to vertical ratio).^'' ( 7997 FEIR Measure 1-5) 

G-21 If demolition is not immediately followed by redevelopment, the Port or project sponsor, as 

determined by the Port, should carry out effective measures that leave the site of all demolished 
buildings in a condition that will not pose a life safety hazard or potential to damage adjacent 
properties. 

Such measures should include removal and or proper sealing of pipes (including water, gas, and 
sewer lines), establishment of effective shoring or construction of retaining walls for unstable pit 
walls, filling of basements that create hazardous conditions, removal of hazardous substances, and 
other measures as deemed appropriate at a specific site, such as fencing. The Port would be 
responsible for vacant lands that may include the hazards identified in the Geology, Soils and 



U.S. Department of the Navy, Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, EIS: Homeporting Battleship 
Battlegroup/Cruiser Destroyer Group, p. 7-4, 1987. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



158 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



rv. MITIGATION MEASURES 

G GEOLOGY 

Seismicity section of the WLUP FEIR. The above measures are minimum requirements to ensure 
that hazards would be held at acceptable levels until such time as land development could occur. 
The Port would be responsible for carrying out the mitigation or overseeing compliance with it. 
(1997 FEIR Measure 1-6) 

H. HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES 

REVISED MEASURE FROM THE 1997 WATERFRONT PLAN FEIR 
IDENTIFIED IN THIS SEIR 

The Waterfront Plan FEIR included an historic resources survey in the Pier 70 area (ARG. 1996). That 
survey identified Building 1 16, proposed for reuse by Waste Resources Technologies, as a potential 
contributor to a potential Pier 70 historic district. Accordingly, the following more specific measiu-e 
supplements the general measures included in the 1997 FEIR (which shall continue to apply to other 
buildings in the Pier 70 area). 

H. l To avoid adverse effects on the potential historic district at Pier 70, the Port should ensure that a 

qualified historic preservation architect reviews the proposed renovation plans for Building 1 16 at 
Pier 70 prior to issuance of any demolition or building permit for the project component that would 
reuse this building. To the extent that exterior changes are to be made to Building 1 16. these 
changes should be consistent with the maritime/industrial character of the Pier 70 area, particularly 
with regard to the rear of the building, abutting Michigan Street, consistent with the Waterfront 
Plan Design and Access Element direction to preserve views of the historic warehouses (including 
Building 1 16). 

I. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

REVISED MEASURE FROM THE 1997 WATERFRONT PLAN FEIR, AS 
APPROVED BY THE PORT COMMISSION, JUNE 1997 (Included in the Project) 

I.l. Given the possibility that subsurface archaeological resources exist in the Southern Waterfront 
project area, yet the inherent uncertainty about the specific locations and scope of such buried 
resources, the Port or sponsor of individual future project(s), as determined by the Pon. shall retain 
an archaeologist as early as is practical in the site selection or schematic design stage of future 
development project(s) that would involve excavation or other substantial soil disturbance of 
greater than four feet in depth. The archaeologist would prepare a brief preliminan,' site-specific 
evaluation or letter report, based on existing archival report information, assessing the 
archaeological sensitivity of the specific site(s) under consideration relative to the scope of 
excavation proposed. The archaeologist would consider the history of fill soils on the site(s) in the 
assessment of the potential for significant archaeological resources to exist and be disturbed or 
destroyed by the contemplated project, and make recommendations on subsequent actions 
designed to ensure the protection of potentially significant resources. 

Based on the initial site-specific report, the archaeologist and the Environmental Review Officer 
(ERO) would determine whether a more detailed site assessment is warranted, the results of which 
could include an appropriate course of action necessary to minimize the disturbance to significant 



Case No. 1999.377E 



159 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterf ront SEIR 



rv. MITIGATION MEASURES 



I. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 



archaeological resources, and/or maximize information recovery where such disturbance cannot be 
avoided. Depending on the expected sensitivity of the area to be excavated, this could include a 
program of pre-construction testing, excavation monitoring, or both. If the ERO concurs with a 
preliminary evaluation determining that a project site has no potential to contain significant 
archaeological resources that could be impacted by a proposed development (which may 
commonly occur in the areas of recent fill or disturbance, such as most of the waterfront south of 
China Basin), then this measure would be satisfied and archaeological issues would no longer be a 
concern for that particular development project. 

If, based on the likelihood of encountering significant archaeological resources as identified in the 
site assessment report(s), the archaeologist and the ERO determine that pre-construction testing is 
warranted to better determine the probability of finding cultural remains, the sponsor would retain 
the services of an archaeologist familiar with prehistoric and urban historical archaeology, and 
San Francisco specifically. The archaeologist would carry out a pre-excavation testing program 
using a series of mechanical, exploratory borings or trenches and/or other testing methods 
determined by the archaeologist and the ERO to be appropriate. 

If, after testing, the archaeologist determines that no further investigations or precautions are 
necessary to safeguard potentially significant archaeological resources, the archaeologist would 
submit a written report to the ERO, with a copy to the project sponsor. If the archaeologist 
determines that further investigations or precautions are necessary, he/she should consult with the 
ERO and they should jointly determine what additional procedures are necessary to minimize ^ 
potential effects on archaeological resources. 

These additional mitigation measures would be implemented by the project sponsor and might 
include a program of on-site monitoring of all site excavation, during which the archaeologist 
would record observations in a permanent log. The monitoring program, whether or not there are 
finds of significance, would result in a written report to be submitted first and directly to the ERO, 
with a copy to the project sponsor. During the monitoring program, the project sponsor would 
designate one individual on site as his/her representative. This representative would have the 
authority to direct and suspend work at the site to give the archaeologist time to investigate and 
evaluate archaeological resources should they be encountered. 

Should evidence of cultural resoiu-ces of potential significance be found during the monitoring 
program, the archaeologist would immediately notify the ERO, and the project sponsor would halt 
any activities which the archaeologist and the ERO jointly determine could damage such cultural 
resources. Ground-disturbing activities which might damage cultural resources would be 
suspended for a total maximum of four weeks over the course of construction. 

If prehistoric archaeological deposits are fortuitously discovered, the California Native American 
Heritage Commission in Sacramento and local Native American organizations should be consulted 
and involved in making resource management decisions. All applicable legal requirements 
concerning the treatment of cultural materials and Native American burials should be enforced. 

After notifying the ERO, the archaeologist would prepare a written report to be submitted first and 
directly to the ERO, with a copy to the project sponsor, which would contain an assessment of the 
potential significance of the find and recommendations for what measures should be implemented 
to minimize potential effects on archaeological resources. Based on this report, the ERO would 



Case No. 1999.377E 



160 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



rv. MITIGATIOX MEASURES 

I. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

recommend specific additional mitigation measures to be implemented by the project sponsor. 
These additional mitigation measures might include a site security program, additional on-site 
investigations by the archaeologist, and/or documentation, preservation, and recovery of cultural 
material. 

Finally, the archaeologist would prepare a report documenting the cultural resources that were 
discovered, an evaluation as to their significance, and a description as to how any archaeological 
testing, exploration and/or recovery program was conducted. 

Copies of all draft reports prepared according to this mitigation measure would be sent first and 
directly to the ERO for review. Following approval by the ERO, copies of the final repon would 
be sent to the President of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and the California 
Historical Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. Three copies of the fmal 
archaeology report(s) shall be submitted to the Office of Major Environmental Analysis of the 
Planning Department, accompanied by copies of the transmittals documenting its distribution to 
the President of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and the California Archaeological 
Site Survey Northwest Information Center. {1997 FEIR Measure 0-1 b) 

Based on the descriptions of the Industry Group project components and the proposed Illinois Street 
bridge, minimal excavation would be required, and none of these project components would appear to 
have the potential to disturb subsurface cultural resources, should such resources be present at a 
particular project component site. Measure 1. 1 above would apply, however, to future Port development. 

J. MEASURES FROM THE 1997 WATERFRONT PLAN FEIR NOT 
APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT ANALYZED IN THIS SEIR 

TE^SPORTATION 

• Under Alternative A for the weekday P.M. peak hour, the intersection of The Embarcadero and 
Bay Street would be at LOS E, an unacceptable service level. A right turn arrow for the Bay Street 
approach to the intersection would improve this condition to LOS D, an acceptable level of 
service. (7997 FEIR Measure D-1 ) 

• Under Alternative B for the weekday P.M. peak hour and during the Saturday midday peak hour, 
the intersection of The Embarcadero and Bay Street would operate at LOS F. an unacceptable 
service level. A right turn arrow for the Bay Street approach to the intersection eastbound w ould 
improve weekday P.M. peak hour delay time by about 40 seconds; however, the LOS would 
remain at F. With the right turn arrow, the Saturday midday peak hour service level would 
improve from LOS F to D, an acceptable service level. ( 1997 FEIR Measure D-2) 

• Also under Alternative B for the weekday P.M. peak hour, the intersection of The Embarcadero 
and North Point would operate at LOS E. Providing a right turn pocket, by removing two to three 
parking spaces and removing the red zone along the southern edge of North Point Street 
approaching the intersection (assuming this bus stop will not be needed in the future with the F- 
line operation), would improve this intersection to LOS D. ( 7997 FEIR Measure D-.^) 



Case No. I999.377E 



161 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



IV. MITIGATION MEASURES 



J. MEASURES FROM 1997 PEER BUT NOT APPLICABLE 



• To reduce vehicular traffic, and to accommodate demand for transit along The Embarcadero 
generated by Alternative B, additional transit capacity along The Embarcadero (with direct 
connection between Fisherman's Wharf and the South Beach/China Basin subareas) would be 
needed, particularly on weekends. Ideally, additional Muni service (e.g., additional F-Line 
streetcars, continual service along the full length of The Embarcadero [formerly proposed as the E- 
Line], F-Line supplemented by reinstating 32-Embarcadero bus service, or some combination of 
these) should be provided. If conditions warrant such additional transit capacity, the Port and/or its 
tenants should provide financial assistance to Muni for both capital and operating costs. If 
augmentation of Muni service is determined to be infeasible, and/or the degree of augmented Muni 
service is not sufficient to meet demand, the Port and/or its tenants could institute private transit 
shuttle services along The Embarcadero with stops located to increase accessibility to and the 
attractiveness of regional transit (e.g. BART, Caltrain, SamTrans and ferries). ( 1997 FEIR 
Measure D-5) 

• Under Alternative B significant numbers of short transit trips along The Embarcadero north of the 
Ferry Building are forecast, which would primarily have an impact on the Muni F-Line, 
particularly on weekends. Alternative B would also generate new demand for Muni service that 
could cause significant congestion on individual lines Citywide. Muni may not have sufficient 
operating funds to provide additional seating capacity over that currently projected. Several 
options are available to help mitigate this impact. 

A. The Transit Impact Development Fee Ordinance currently is applicable only to net new 
office development within a specific geographic area. The Ordinance could be amended to 
specifically apply to development within the Project Area, although the amount of net new 
office growth in the Project Area would not be large and thus would provide limited 
additional revenue to Muni to help support additional transit service on The Embarcadero. 
The TIDF could also be amended to be more inclusive in terms of the land uses that would 
trigger imposition of the fee on a developer, while continuing to be related primarily to 
special (extraordinary) demand for peak period service. 

B. A new funding mechanism for Muni could be enacted, such as a Special Transit Assessment 
District. Various proposals for alternative funding mechanisms have been put forward in the 
past. The Port should actively support future proposals which are designed to provide 
additional operating and capital resources to Muni, including any future local proposals for a 
special district, tax or fee that would support Muni services, and any future proposals before 
the State and federal legislatures which would provide additional financial resources to Muni 
for both operations and capital projects. The Port could also be an advocate for specific 
transit capital projects that would enhance Muni service to the Project Area. 

C. The San Francisco half-cent sales tax for transportation expires in the year 2009. The 
Transportation Expenditure Plan establishes a prioritized list of specific projects for use of 
these funds. It is possible, if not likely, that the San Francisco County Transportation 
Authority, which administers the sales tax funds, may seek reauthorization of the sales tax 
prior to its expiration. A new Transportation Expenditure Plan would need to be prepared to 
support such reauthorization. The Port should actively support identification of specific 
transit improvements along the waterfront which could help mitigate unmet transit demand 
identified in this EIR as a component of this Expenditure Plan. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



162 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



IV. MITIGATION MEASURES 



J. MEASURES FROM 1997 FEIR BUT NOT APPLICABLE 



D. The Port and/or its tenants could directly provide funds to Muni for additional waterfront 
transit service. Such direct payment to Muni might be partially financed from additional 
revenues to the Port resulting from Waterfront Land Use Plan (WLUP) development. ( 1997 
FEIR Measure D-6) 



VISUAL QUALITY 

Subsequent to certification of the 1997 Waterfront Plan FEIR and adoption of the Waterfront Land 
Use Plan, the Port adopted design guidelines for the waterfiront. The Waterfront Plan's Design and 
Access Element includes language calling for preservation of historic resources, including - in the 
Southern Waterfront Area - the principal Union Works Buildings at Pier 70 (Buildings 101, 102, 
and 104 on the north side of 20th Street east of Illinois Street, and, if feasible. Buildings 1 13-1 14 
on the south side of 20th Street). The Design and Access Element states also that "additional 
Pier 70 resources may be identified for preservation following further research and analysis of 
Pier 70' s periods of historical significance and the feasibility of reusing individual buildings." 
Outside the Southern Waterfront, the Port is considering nominating historic buildings along the 
waterfront from China Basin north to Fisherman's Wharf as National Register Historic District. 
Accordingly, visual quality mitigation measures from the 1997 WLUP FEIR have largely been 
completed. The Port is required to consider visual quality objectives early in the development of 
proposed projects, evaluate projects against standards in the Design and Access Element, and 
ensure that project approvals are consistent with the adopted standards. 



GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY 

• New high-occupancy mid-rise structures (i.e., on the order of 6 to 15 stories) in the Project Area 
should be designed with the aid of a dynamic method analysis. The Port should consider 
establishing specific building design criteria developed by a task force of structural engineers to 
determine which types of structures (considering framing system, foundation, height and massing) 
should be designed using a dynamic method analysis and adopt this requirement as a Waterfront 
Land Use Plan policy. 

The severe ground shaking hazards of Port lands indicate that large structures (including high- 
occupancy mid-rise structures) should be designed to meet seismic resistance standards greater 
than the minimum standards in the UBC. The UBC does not require this except for cenain 
buildings (none of which are specifically identified in the Waterfront Land Use Plan, although the 
Ferry Terminal is being designed as an "essential structure," to more stringent earthquake force 
design requirements. Fire and police stations, hospitals and schools also would be essential 
structures). Currently, the best available method for achieving this end is the use of a dynamic 
method analysis for the design of the buildings. This method incorporates a consideration of the 
response of the site soils to earthquakes generated in the region. For each building, the site 
response spectra are modeled and incorporated into the structural design. As noted in the Geolog> . 
Soils and Seismicity of the WLUP FEIR, the entire Project Area should be considered part of a 
"special studies zone" in which the severe earthquake hazards of ground shaking and secondary 
effects are evaluated and incorporated into structural designs. Use of a dynamic method analysis 
substantially enhances the chances that the new building would be more resistant to collapse and 
damage from a major earthquake than if it meets only the minimum UBC requirements The 
higher costs associated with using the method and applying it in design and construction likely are 



Case No. 1999.377E 



163 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



rV. MITIGATION MEASURES 

J. MEASURES FROM 1997 FEIR BUT NOT APPLICABLE 

significantly less than those that would result from a building being red-tagged or required to 
undergo substantial repair following a major earthquake. ( 1997 FEIR Measure I-7a) 

• Piers that are in poor condition should be repaired or demolished and removed. If repaired, piles 
that are deteriorated should be replaced or the portion that is rotted or deteriorated should be cut 
off and replaced with a concrete steel sleeve. A structural engineer should be consulted regarding 
the repair of the piers. ( 1997 FEIR Measure I-lOb) 

• At the time of anticipated tsunami incursion, the San Francisco Police Department should close off 
the immediate waterfront area of Aquatic Park, Fisherman's Wharf and the Hyde Street Pier to the 
public; all marina operators should close off access to the docks for the public and boat owners; 
and ferry boat operators should prevent people from standing on water-level ferry loading docks 
everywhere in the Project Area. ( 1997 FEIR Measure I-lla) 

This mitigation measure would help to reduce the potential for casualties to occur from tsunami by 
keeping people away from areas where injury could occur. Damage to facilities would not be 
mitigated. 

• To reduce potential damage to facilities from tsunami, consider constructing larger and higher 
breakwaters at the Hyde Street Pier, Fisherman's Wharf and marinas. The infrequency of tsunami 
may not warrant the cost and environmental impact of breakwater reconstruction. ( 1997 FEIR 
Measure I- 1 lb) 



REFERENCES - Mitigation Measures 

ARG (Architectural Resources Group), "Port of San Francisco Historic Resources Data B." 
November 1996. 

Stormwater Quality Task Force, Industrial/Commercial Best Management Practices Handbook, prepared 
by Camp Dresser & McKee, et. al., March 1993. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



164 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



CHAPTER V 



SIGNinCANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

In accordance with Section 21067 of the CaHfomia Environmental Quality Act (QEQA), and with 
Sections 15040, 15081 and 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of this chapter is to 
identify environmental impacts that could not be eliminated or reduced to an insignificant level by 
mitigation measures included as part of the project, or by other mitigation measures that could be 
implemented, as described in Chapter IV, Mitigation Measures, pp. 143-164. Findings in this chapter are 
subject to final determination by the Planning Commission as part of its certification of the SEIR. 

The project would result in significant, unmitigable traffic congestion at selected local intersections. The 
project also would result in total project emissions of criteria air pollutants on a region-wide basis that 
would exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management District project-specific thresholds and would 
therefore be considered significant and unmitigable, and would contribute to potentially significant 
cumulative air emissions from existing (unquantified) and possible future (unknown) sources in the 
greater site vicinity. 

Specifically, traffic congestion at four intersections would not be mitigable with the addition of traffic 
from both phases of the proposed project in 2015. These intersections are: 

> Mariposa Street / 1-280 southbound on-ramp (LOS F in a.m. peak hour; LOS E in p.m. peak hour); 

> Mariposa Street / 1-280 northbound off-ramp (LOS F in a.m. peak hour; LOS E in p.m. peak hour); 

> Third / Mariposa Streets (LOS E in a.m. and p.m. peak hours); and 

> Evans Avenue / Cesar Chavez Street (LOS F in a.m. peak hour). 

Project-generated maximum daily emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen dioxide (NO,), 
and respirable particulates (PM-10) from all project components combined would exceed the 
significance threshold of 80 pounds per day in both 2003 and 2015. The significance threshold for 
annual emissions of 15 tons per year would also be exceeded for ROG and NO^ in each year. Therefore, 
the project would result in a significant effect with regard to emissions of criteria pollutants. This 
significant impact would occur regionally, and would not be directly reflective of local conditions in the 
immediate vicinity of the project. (As discussed in the local air quality analysis on p. 89. localized 
emissions concentrations would not be significant). This significant regional impact cannot be reduced 
to a less-than-significant level because of the magnitude of the project. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



165 

ESA 990267 



Somhcni Wait-rfront SEIR 



V. SIGNmCANTUNAVOroABLE EFFECTS 



The project would also contribute to a potentially significant cumulative regional impact on air quality 
because daily and annual volumes of criteria pollutants would exceed Bay Area Air Quality Management 
District (and SEIR) project-specific significance thresholds as described above. Locally, cumulative 
carbon monoxide concentrations would be less than significant. However, cumulative concentrations of 
PM-10 and diesel particulate cannot be quantified because of the multitude of existing sources. 
Therefore, to be conservative, these emissions are deemed cumulatively significant, although the project 
itself would not have a significant effect with regard to local concentrations of PM-10 or diesel 
particulate. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



166 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



CHAPTER VI 



ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 

As described in the Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR, market conditions and other factors will determine 
the nature of development that occurs along the waterfront, consistent with provisions of the Waterfront 
Plan. Alternative buildout scenarios were analyzed fully in the Waterfront Plan EIR. and are 
incorporated herein by reference. In addition, this chapter describes alternatives to the project analyzed 
in this Supplemental EIR, and thereby provides further specificity regarding the range of altemati\ es that 
could occur in the Southern Waterfront subarea under the Waterfront Land Use Plan. Project decision- 
makers must adopt and implement one of the following alternatives, in lieu of approving the project, if 
the alternatives are determined feasible and if they would substantially lessen or avoid significant 
environmental effects of the proposed project. 

In preparing this Supplemental EIR, staff of the Planning Department and the Port considered carefully 
whether alternative sites are available that could potentially accommodate the entirety of the project and 
eliminate potentially significant effects identified. San Francisco has a limited supply of industrially 
zoned land that could acconunodate components of the project such as the Industry Group uses, and also 
has a limited supply of land that can accommodate both marine and rail transport. This supply of land is 
located entirely within the southeastern quadrant of the City, and thus the staff concluded that even if an 
alternative site could be identified, its use would not eliminate significant impacts associated with the 
project. For example, traffic impacts of project uses would likely affect many of the same intersections 
examined in this SEIR, and particularly those where significant unavoidable effects were identified, 
because those intersections are along key routes through the southeastern portion of San Francisco. With 
regard to air quality, the project's significant unmitigable effects would occur with regard to regional air 
quality, and would therefore be little affected by a shift to other site(s). For these reasons, the 
alternatives analysis presented below delineates a range of possible intensities that could occur in the 
Southern Waterfront subarea, including alternatives that would delete or modify components and land 
uses within the project description. In addition to those alternatives explicitly described and analyzed 
below, alternatives that rearrange components of the project within the site area could be considered by 
the decision-makers, along with alternatives that would delete or modify other components and land uses 
within the project, as long as no new significant environmental impacts would result. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



167 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



VI. ALTERNATIVES 



A. ALTERNATIVE A: NO PROJECT 

DESCRIPTION 

This alternative would entail no change to the project area, which would remain in its existing condition. 
None of the Industry Group project components would be implemented, and the Illinois Street 
Multimodal Bridge would not be built. Because several of the Industry Group components are proposed 
in response to the need for Industry Group members to relocate fi-om existing locations, this alternative 
would necessarily involve displacement of those uses elsewhere in San Francisco, including the existing 
Bode Gravel and RMC Pacific concrete plants and the Coach USA bus operation. Those uses could 
relocate elsewhere in the City, although particularly in the case of the concrete plants, the potential 
locations are limited by the heavy industrial nature of the uses. It would be speculative, however, to 
project potential relocation sites for these uses, which could be forced to move out of San Francisco 
under this alternative. It should be noted that, if concrete plants were to relocate outside of 
San Francisco, the demand for ready-mix concrete would not be expected to change, since the demand is 
a result of development activity. The result would be longer trips by cement mixers between out-of-City 
plants and construction sites in San Francisco and/or an increase in the use of small on-site "batch 
plants." 

Also under this alternative, the future development envisioned for the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity 
Area, the Pier 70 Maritime Reserve area, the Pier 90-94 backlands, and the Western Pacific site (except 
for the already approved Muni Light Rail storage and maintenance facility) would not necessarily occur 
as described in this SEIR. There might still be some development on these sites in the future, consistent 
with the Waterfront Land Use Plan, and subsequent environmental review could be required if projects 
were to differ substantially from those described in this document. Increased cargo shipping could also 
occur in the Southern Waterfront, consistent with the Waterfront Plan. 

IMPACTS 

This alternative would result in little or no short-term (Phase I) increase in automobile or truck travel, as 
would occur with implementation of the proposed project. The Phase I adverse impacts on intersections 
would not occur at Third / 25th Streets, Third Street / Cargo Way, and Amador Street / Cargo Way. 
Long-term (2015) effects on local intersections would be less substantial than would occur with the 
project, but could still be significant, depending on the volume of future development on Port lands and 
increased cargo shipping. Long-term future conditions would be similar to those identified in other 
analyses. For example, the intersection of Third and Cesar Chavez Streets would operate at LOS F in the 
p.m. peak hour, as described in the Third Street Light Rail EIS/EIR. Therefore, this alternative would 
result in significant traffic impacts in 2015, although to a lesser degree than would the project. 

Emissions of criteria air pollutants would be less substantial than with the project, particularly in the 
short-term (consistent with Phase I of the project). By 2015, depending on the increase in cargo shipping 
at the Port, emissions of NOx could be significant, as with the project, although the volume of emissions 



Case No. 1999.377E 



168 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



VI. ALTERNATTSTS 



would be less. This alternative would also result in a significant cumulative effect related to air quality. 
Like the project, however, this alternative would result in less-than-significant effect with regard to local 
concentrations of carbon monoxide, PM-10, and diesel particulate. 

Effects related to hydrology would be less substantial than those of the project, and would be less than 
significant with the mitigation measures revised from the Waterfront Plan EIR to control stormwater 
runoff. As with transportation and air quality, the precise nature of future development on Port lands and 
the potential future increase in cargo shipping is not known for this alternative, but it is likel\' that there 
would be some increase in impervious surface that could result in an increase in stormwater runoff to the 
Bay, albeit to a lesser degree than with the project. 

Similarly, the No Project Alternative would result in less potential for exposure to and accidental release 
of hazardous materials than would the project, although any potential impacts would continue to be 
mitigated, as with the project, by reliance on existing regulations, including Article 22A of the City 
Public Health Code. As with the project, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 

The No Project Alternative would be environmentally superior to the project because it would avoid 
much of the environmental impact of the project. 

The No Project Alternative would not meet the project objectives. 



B. ALTERNATIVES: REDUCED-SCALE ALTERNATIVE 

DESCRIPTION 

This alternative would include all Industry Group facilities with the exception of the proposed Mission 
Valley Rock asphalt plant and the Coach USA bus storage facility, as well as those shipping-related 
components that are proposed to provide for an anticipated shift in the supply of construction aggregate 
from local sources to out-of-area soujces. Included would be two concrete plants (Bode Gravel at 
Pier 92 and RMC Pacific at Pier 80); Mission Valley Rock's aggregate import terminal at Pier 92 (but 
not Mission Valley's proposed asphalt plant; British Pacific Aggregates aggregate shipping and storage 
operation at Pier 94 (but not BPA's potential future concrete and asphalt plants); ISG Resources fly ash 
storage facility (in the former grain silos at Pier 90); and Waste Resource Technologies' construction 
materials recycling operation at Pier 70. Not included in this alternative would be the Mission Valley 
Rock asphalt plant, the potential future BPA concrete and asphalt plants, or Coach USA's bus storage 
and maintenance facility at Pier 96. Under this alternative, concrete production would remain at the 
2003 level through 2015 (see Appendix A for a discussion of assumptions regarding construction 
aggregate production). 

This alternative would also include construction of the Illinois Street Intermodal Bridge, proposed by the 
Port. However, less future development would occur on other Port lands than with the proposed project. 
Alternative B would include increased cargo shipping at Pier 80 and Piers 94-96. although at a lesser 



Case No. 1999.377E 



169 

ESA 990267 



Southern W'aierfrotU SEIR 



VI. ALTERNATIVES 



level than would occur with the project; expansion of the Port's dredge material handling site at Pier 94; 
development of the Pier 70 mixed-use opportunity area and the Pier 70 maritime reserve area; and 
development of the Western Pacific property. This alternative does not include development of the 
Piers 90-94 backlands. 

IMPACTS 

This alternative would result in less traffic generation, particularly with Phase II (2015) development, 
than would the project. With this alternative. Phase I daily vehicle trip generation would be about 
20 percent less than with the project (Industry Group vehicle trip generation would be about 30 percent 
less than with the project). In 2015, Phase II daily vehicle trip generation would be almost 35 percent 
less than with the project. The decrease in peak-hour trip generation, compared to that with the project, 
would be even greater - about 50 percent in the a.m. peak hour and about 85 percent in the p.m. peak 
hour. 

Because Phase I of the project would not result in any significant unavoidable traffic impacts, 
intersection levels of service for Alternative B were evaluated for Phase 11 only. With this alternative's 
decreased traffic volumes, compared to the project, intersection levels of service would be improved, 
compared to conditions with Phase II project development. In the a.m. peak hour, only two intersections 
would operate at LOS F - Mariposa Street at the southbound 1-280 on-ramp and at the northbound 1-280 
off-ramp. These intersections would also be at LOS F with the project. Three other intersections would 
operate at LOS E. Impacts could be mitigated at one of these five intersections. Three other 
intersections that would operate at LOS F with the project would instead operate at LOS D or better with 
Alternative B. In the p.m. peak hour, only three intersections would operate at LOS E or F under 
Alternative B, compared to 1 1 intersections with the project. Impacts at these three intersections could 
be mitigated to LOS D or better. Thus, like the proposed project, Alternative B would result in 
significant unavoidable traffic impacts, although the impacts would be less substantial than those with 
the project. Level of service results are shown in Table 24. 

Near-term air quality impacts (2003) would be similar to, but slightly less than, those identified for the 
project, because the overall level of activity in Phase I would be similar under this alternative to that with 
the project. By 2015, the overall emissions of criteria pollutants generated by this alternative would be 
reduced, compared to the project. In particular, annual emissions of NO^ from future cargo shipping 
activity at the Port would be about half of those with the project, because the annual volume of cargo 
handled would be about half that with the project. However, criteria pollutant emissions would not be 
reduced to a less-than-significant level, and would be significant, as with the project. Local air quality 
impacts (concentrations of carbon monoxide, respirable particulate matter, and diesel particulate) would 
be less-than-significant, as with the project, and would be would be incrementally less substantial. 
Cumulative air quality effects would remain significant, although this alternative's contribution would be 
less than that of the project. 



Case No. 1999.377E 170 Southern Waterfront SEIR 

ESA 990267 



VI. ALTERNATRTS 



TABLE 24 

TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR ALTERNATIVE B 



A.M. Peak Hour 
2015 + Alternative B 
Project (2015) 
LOS Delay LOS Delay 



P.M. Peak Hour 
2015 + Alternative B 
Project (2015) 
LOS Delay LOS Delay 



Intersection 



1-280 SB on-ramp/ Mariposa Street 


F V 


>60 


F V 


>60 


E V 


46.2 


D 


30.7 


1-280 NB off-ramp/ Mariposa Street 


F 


>60 


fV 


>60 


E 


42.1 


D 


39.3 


Minnesota / Mariposa Streets 


bV 


13.9 


b 


14.0 


cV 


15.9 


c 


16.1 


Third / Mariposa Streets 


E 


59.1 


E 


41.2 


E 


56.4 


D 


35.0 


Illinois / Mariposa Streets 


D 


25.1 


D 


25.1 


D 


21.5 


D 


21.5 


Third / 20th Streets 


D 


37.5 


C 


19.7 


D 


37.2 


C 


20.9 


Illinois / 20th Streets 


C 


17.3 


C 


17.3 


c 


11.0 


C 


11.0 


Third / 25th Streets 


D 


28.6 


C 


18.2 


F 


>60 


F 


>60 


Mitigated Level of Service (2015) 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


D 


34.1 


D 


<34.1 


Illinois / 25th Streets t 


B(C) 


9.3 


A(B) 


4.3 


F 


>60 


A(B) 


3.5 


Mitigated Level of Service (2015) 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


A 


4.3 


N/A 


N/A 


Pennsylvania / 1-280 SB on-ramp t 


B(C) 


5.3 


A(B) 


3.1 


E(F) 


40.9 


A(B) 


4.4 


Mitigated Level of Service (2015) 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


B 


5.5 


N/A 


N/A 


Evans Av. / Cesar Chavez St. 


F 


>60 


E 


42.2 


D 


36.9 


C 


23.6 


Pennsylvania / Cesar Chavez Streets 


F 


>60 


D 


39.8 


F 


>60 


E 


57.6 


Mitigated Level of Service (2015) 


D 


26.7 


N/A 


N/A 


D 


32.6 


D 


<32.6 


Third / Cesar Chavez Streets 


F 


>60 


E 


56.5 


F 


>60 


F 


>60 


Mitigated Level of Service (2015) 


D 




D 




D 




D 




Illinois / Cesar Chavez Streets $ 


F 


>60 


B(C) 


5.8 


F 


>60 


A(C) 


3.4 


Mitigated Level of Service (2015) 


D 


32.6 


N/A 


N/A 


B 


11.5 


N/A 


N/A 


Third Street / Cargo Way 


C 


18.7 


C 


18.6 


D 


38.9 


D 


38.6 


Amador Street / Cargo Way X 


F 


>60 


B(D) 


7.2 


F 


>60 


A(C) 


2.0 


Mitigated Level of Service (2015) 


C 


15.7 


N/A 


N/A 


B 


14.4 


N/A 


N/A 


Third Street / Evans Avenue 


D 


37.3 


D 


27.9 


D 


34.4 


D 


32.6 



KEY: LOS = Level of Service; Delay = Delay in average seconds per vehicle. Where delay is in excess of 60 seconds, ihc 
notation ">60" is used; beyond 60 seconds, measurement of average delay becomes unreliable. 

X - Unsignalized intersection. LOS and delay reported for overall intersection; LOS in parentheses is for critical movement 

(normally, minor street left-turn), when worse than overall LOS. Where previously approved signalization is to occur in the 
future, symbol is used with LOS for individual scenarios; a check mark (\) denotes scenarios m which a signal is 
assumed. Where no signalization is approved, "t" symbol follows name of intersection. 

Bold-face text indicates Level of Service worse than City of San Francisco standard (i.e.. LOS E or worse). 

SOURCE: Wilbur Smith Associates 



Effects related to hydrology and to hazardous materials, both of which would be related to the physical 
areas where development would occur, would be similar to impacts of the project because, while 
Alternative B would have a reduced level of concrete production and reduced cargo shipping, compared 
to the project, this alternative would include development on virtually all of the same sites as would the 
project, with the only exception being the Pier 90-94 backlands. With regard to hydrology, therefore. 



Case No. I999.377E 



171 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



VI. ALTERNAXrVES 



this alternative would result in a reduction of about 38 percent in new stormwater runoff, compared to 
the project (and an increase of 18 percent compared to existing conditions), and the impact would be 
less-than-significant with mitigation, as with the project. 

Concerning hazardous materials, because Alternative B would not include development on the 
Pier 90-94 backlands, there would be no effects related to development on the former landfill at Pier 94. 
As described in the Hazardous Materials setting, however, project effects would be less than significant 
assuming compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations. Other effects of 
Alternative B with regard to hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation, as they 
would with the project. 

Effects on biological resources would be essentially the same as those of the project, and would be less 
than significant, because this alternative, like the project, would include construction of the Illinois Street 
bridge and associated mitigation. 

Because it would result in less substantial traffic impacts than would the project, and would have slightly 
less impact on air quality than would the project, the Reduced Density Alternative would be considered 
the Environmentally Superior Alternative. 

C. ALTERNATIVE C: RESmENTIAL USE FUTURE SCENARIO 
DESCRIPTION 

With regard to Phase I, this alternative would be the same as the proposed project, in that the six Industry 
Group project components'*^ would be implemented, and the Illinois Street Intermodal Bridge would be 
constructed. However, in Phase II, Alternative C would include residential uses at the Pier 70 Mixed- 
Use Opportunity Area, and would also include less office / research and development space there, 
compared to the proposed project. Other future Port development would be the same as with the project. 

At the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity Area, this alternative would include 500 residential units, 
compared to no residential use under the primary set of cumulative assumptions. Approximately 
200,000 square feet of office / research and development use would be included, compared to 
610,000 square feet of such uses with the project. Retail / commercial activity would be unchanged from 
the project, at 100,000 square feet, and public access / recreational uses would also be unchanged, at 
240,000 square feet. To avoid adverse effects on the future residential uses from continuing operation of 
the working shipyard at Pier 70, the residential units would be located along Illinois Street, while office / 
research and development uses and retail / commercial uses would be between the shipyard and the 
residences, serving as a buffer from shipyard noise. 



The six components would include seven operators; as described in the Project Description, Bode Gravel and Mission Valley 
Rock will be co-tenants. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



172 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



\X ALTERNATTVES 



IMPACTS 

Effects of Alternative C would be generally similar to those of the proposed project. Overall daily 
vehicle trip generation for Phase I and Phase 11 combined would be about 2.5 percent less than with the 
project, while peak-hour vehicle trips would increase slightly, by about 2.5 percent in the a.m. peak hour 
and almost 6 percent in the p.m. peak-hour. However, the changes, which would total fewer than 
50 additional vehicles in the a.m. peak hour and just over 100 additional vehicles in the p.m. peak hour, 
would not be substantial enough to result in changes in the 2015 level of service at most intersections. 
For those intersections were level of service would be different, most would improve, compared to the 
project, except at Third Street and Cargo Way, where this alternative would result in LOS E in the p.m. 
peak hom-, compared to LOS D with the project. Level of service results are shown in Table 25. 

Air quality impacts would be incrementally less substantial than those with the project, owing to the 
slight decrease in daily vehicle trip generation. However, regional effects would be significant, as with 
the project, both on a project-specific and cumulative basis. Like the project, this alternative would not 
result in a project-specific significant effect on local air quality impacts (concentrations of carbon 
monoxide, respirable particulate matter, and diesel particulate). Also like the project, cumulative local 
air quality effects would be unknown, but would be considered significant with this alternative, and the 
contribution would be similar to that of the project. 

Effects related to hydrology and hazardous materials would be virtually unchanged from those of the 
project, because the areas to be developed and the amount of new impervious surface would be the same. 
Because Alternative C would include residential units at the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunit\' .Area, 
remediation of sites where past use of hazardous materials has resulted in contamination would be 
required by law to achieve a higher standard of cleanup. 

Effects on biological resources would be essentially the same as those of the project, and would be less 
than significant, because this alternative, like the project, would include construction of the Illinois Street 
bridge and associated mitigation. 

Depending on the specific configuration of the development at the Pier 70 Mixed-Use Opportunity .Area, 
site specific noise analysis, and potentially analysis of nighttime lighting, would be required to determine 
whether 24-hour operations at the Pier 70 shipyard could prove annoying to residents at the Mixed-Use 
Opportunity Area. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



173 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



VI. ALTERNATIVES 



TABLE 25 

TRAFFIC LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR ALTERNATIVE C 



A.M. Peak Hour 
2015 + Alternative C 
Project (2015) 
LOS Delay LOS Delay 



P.M. Peak Hour 
2015 + Alternative C 
Project (2015) 
LOS Delay LOS Delay 



Intersection 



1-280 SB on-ramp/ Mariposa Street 




>60 


F V 


>60 


E V 


46.2 


D 


36.6 


1-280 NB off-ramp/ Mariposa Street 


F 


>60 


F V 


>60 


E 


42.1 


E 


40.2 


Minnesota / Manposa Streets 


B V 


13.9 


B 


14.2 


C V 


15.9 


C 


16.0 


Third / Mariposa Streets 


E 


59.1 


E 


44.9 


E 


56.4 


E 


48.6 


Illinois / Mariposa Streets 


D 


25.1 


D 


23.5 


D 


21.5 


C 


16.9 


Third / 20th Streets 


D 


37.5 


C 


14.8 


D 


37.2 


C 


22.0 


Illinois / 20th Streets 


C 


17.3 


D 


27.3 


C 


11.0 


B 


8.8 


Third / 25th Streets 


D 


28.6 


D 


27.3 


F 


>60 


F 


>60 


Mitigated Level of Service (2015) 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


D 


34.1 


D 




Illinois / 25th Streets $ 


B(C) 


9.3 


B(C) 


7.3 


F 


>60 


B(C) 


8.6 


Mitigated Level of Service (2015) 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


A 


4.3 


N/A 


N/A 


Pennsylvania / 1-280 SB on-ramp t 


B(C) 


5.3 


A(B) 


5.1 


E(F) 


40.9 


D 


34.3 


Mitigated Level of Service (2015) 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


B 


8.5 


N/A 


N/A 


Evans Av. / Cesar Chavez St. 


F 


>60 


F 


>60 


D 


36.9 


D 


27.6 


Pennsylvania / Cesar Chavez Streets 


F 


>60 


F 


>60 


F 


>60 


F 


>60 


Mitigated Level of Service (2015) 


D 


26.7 


D 




D 


32.6 


D 


<32.6 


Third / Cesar Chavez Streets 


F 


>60 


F 


>60 


F 


>60 


F 


>60 


Mitigated Level of Service (2015) 


D 




D 




D 




D 




Illinois / Cesar Chavez Streets $ 


F 


>60 


F 


>60 


F 


>60 


F 


>60 


Mitigated Level of Service (2015) 


D 


32.6 


D 




B 


11.5 


B 




Third Street / Cargo Way 


C 


18.7 


C 


17.8 


D 


38.9 


E 


40.6 


Mitigated Level of Service (2015) 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


D 




Amador Street / Cargo Way % 


F 


>60 


F 


>60 


F 


>60 


E(F) 


46.6 


Mitigated Level of Service (2015) 


C 


15.7 


C 




B 


14.4 


N/A 


N/A 


Third Street / Evans Avenue 


D 


37.3 


D 


31.3 


D 


34.4 


D 


33.8 



KEY: LOS = Level of Service; Delay = Delay in average seconds per vehicle. Where delay is in excess of 60 seconds, the 
notation ">60" is used; beyond 60 seconds, measurement of average delay becomes unreliable. 

t - Unsignalized intersection. LOS and delay reported for overall intersection; LOS in parentheses is for critical movement 

(normally, minor street left-turn), when worse than overall LOS. Where previously approved signalization is to occur in the 
future, "t" symbol is used with LOS for individual scenarios; a check mark (V) denotes scenarios in which a signal is 
assumed. Where no signalization is approved, "t" symbol follows name of intersection. 

Bold-face text indicates Level of Service worse than City of San Francisco standard (i.e., LOS E or worse). 

SOURCE: Wilbur Smith Associates 



Case No. 1999.377E 



174 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



CHAPTER VII 



DEIR DISTRIBUTION LIST 



LIST OF THOSE TO RECEIVE MAILED COPIES OF DRAFT EIR 



FEDERAL AND STATE 
AGENCIES 

Calvin Fong, Chief, Regulatory Branch 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

333 Market Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Dave Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section 
U.S. Coast Guard 
Building 50-6 
Coast Guard Island 
Alameda, CA 94501-5100 

Roslyn Johnson 
U.S. EPA -Region IX 
75 Hawthorne Street 
San Francisco, CA 94105 

Governor's Ofc. of Plan'g & Research 
State Clearinghouse 
1400 Tenth Street 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

David Plummer, Public Land Manager 
State Lands Commission 
100 Howe Avenue #100 South 
Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 

Ray Evans 

California Public Utilities Commission 
505 Van Ness Avenue 
San Francisco, C A 94102 

R. Rempel, Environmental Svcs. Div. 
Department of Fish & Game 
1416 Ninth Street 
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090 



State Office of Historic Preservation 
P.O. Box 942896 
Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 
Attn.: Carol Roland 

Northwest Information Center 
California Archaeological Inventory 
Department of Anthropology 
Sonoma State University 
Rohnert Park, CA 94928 
Attn: Leigh Jordan 

California Department of Transportation 
Ofc. of Transportation Planning - B 
P.O. Box 23660 
Oakland. CA 94623-0660 
Attn: Nandini Shridhar 

Suzie Betzler 

Department of Boating & Waterways 
1629 S Street 
Sacramento, CA 95814 

REGIONAL AGENCIES 

Association of Bay Area Governments 
P.O. Box 2050 
Oakland, CA 94604-2050 
Attn: Suzan Ryder 

Association of Bay Area Governments 
101 8th Street 
Oakland, CA 94607 
Attn: Jean Pedersen 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 
San Francisco Bay Region 
1515 Clay St.. Suite 1400 
Oakland. C A 94612 
Attn: Judy Huang 



Metropolitan Transp. Commission 
101 8th Street 
Oakland, CA 94607 
Attn : Craig Goldblatt 

Steve McAdam 

Bay Conserv ation and Devel. Comm 
50 California Street, Suite 2600 
San Francisco. CA 941 1 1 

Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Distnct 

939 Ellis Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Attn : Joseph Sieinberger 

Kenneth Scheidig 
General Counsel's Office 
AC Transit 
1600 Franklin Street 
Oakland, C A 94612 

BART 

Planning Division 
800 Madison Street 
Oakland, CA 94607 

CITY AND COUNTY OF 
SAN FRANCISCO 

Sue Olive 

Muni Third Street Light Rail Project 

1 145 Market Street 

San Francisco. C A 94102 

Department of Building Inspection 
1660 Mission Street 
San Francisco. CA 94103 
Attn: Frank Chiu. Director 

Mayor's Office of Community Dcvel 
25 Van Ness Ave.. Suite 700 
San Francisco, Ca 94102 



Case No. 1999.377E 



175 

ESA 990267 



Soullwrn Waicrfront SEIR 



Vn. DISTRIBUTION LIST 



Landmarks Preservation Advisory Bd. 

1660 Mission Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Attn: Andrea Green, Secretary 

Daniel Reidy, President 

Penney Magrane, Vice President 

Ina Dearman 

Paul Finwall 

Nancy Ho-Belli 

Tim Kelley 

Jeremy Kotas 

Donna Levitt 

Suheil Shatara 

Marcia Rosen, Director 
Mayor's Office of Housing 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 600 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Maria Ayerdi 

Mayor Office of Economic Devel. 
City Hall, Room 448 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Bureau of Energy Conservation 
Hetch Hetchy Water & Power 
1 155 Market Street, 4 Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn: John Deakin, Director 

Public Utilities Commission 

1155 Market Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Attn: Anson B. Moran, General Mgr. 

Recreation & Park Department 
McLaren Lodge, Golden Gate Park 
Fell and Stanyan Streets 
San Francisco, CA 941 17 
Attn: Deborah Learner 

Police Department 
Plaiming Division, Hall of Justice 
850 Bryant Street, Room 500 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Atm: Capt. Timothy Hettrich 

San Francisco Publi^UtiUties Comm. 
425 Mason Street, 4 Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Bruce Bemhard 

San Francisco Dep't. of Public Works 
Bureau of Street Use and Mapping 
875 Stevenson Street, Room 465 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn.: Barbara Moy 



San Francisco Planning Commission 

1660 Mission Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Attn: Linda Avery, Secretary 

Anita Theoharis, President 

Beverly Mills, Vice President 

Roslyn Baltimore 

Hector Chinchilla 

Wilham Fay 

Cynthia Joe 

Jim Salinas, Jr. 

San Francisco Dep't. of Pkg. & Traffic 
Traffic Engineering Division 
25 Van Ness Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: BondYee 

San Francisco Fire Department 

Division of Planning & Research 

698 Second Street 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

Attn: Lorrie Kalos, Asst. Deputy Chief 

San Francisco Municipal Railway 
MUNI Planning Division 
949 Presidio Avenue, Room 204 
San Francisco, CA94115 
Attn: Peter Straus 

Anthony Delucchi 

San Francisco Real Estate Department 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 400 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Water Department 
Distribution Division 
1990 Newcomb Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94124 
Attn: Joe Relay o. Sr. Engineer 

San Francisco Dep't. of Public Works 
Bureau of Engineering 
1680 Mission Street 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn.: Nelson Wong 

Jose Campos 

San Francisco Redevelopment Agency 
770 Golden Gate Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94102 



LIBRARIES 

Document Library (Three Copies) 
City Library - Civic Center 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Kate Wingerson 

Stanford University Libraries 
Jonsson Library of Government 

Documents 
State & Local Documents Division 
Stanford, CA 94305 

Government Publications Department 
San Francisco State University 
1630 Holloway Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94132 

Hastings College of the Law - Library 

200 McAllister Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102-4978 

Institute of Government Studies 
109 Moses Hall 
University of California 
Berkeley, CA 94720 

MEDIA 

San Francisco Chronicle 
925 Mission Street 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn: San Francisco Desk 

San Francisco Examiner 
P.O. Box 7260 
San Francisco, CA 94120 
Attn: Gerald Adams 

San Francisco Bay Guardian 
520 Hampshire Street 
San Francisco, CA 941 10 
Attn: Gabe Roth, City Editor 

SF Weekly 

185 Berry Street, Suite 3800 
San Francisco, CA 94107 

San Francisco Independent 
1201 Evans Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94124 
Attn.: City Desk 

The Sun Reporter 

1791 Bancroft Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94124-2644 



Case No. 1999.377E 



176 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vn. DISTRIBLTION LIST 



San Francisco Business Times 
275 Battery Street, Suite 940 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
Attn: Tim Turner 

Tenderloin Times 
146 Leavenworth Street 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Rob Waters 

Associated Press 
1390 Market Street, Suite 318 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: BillShifftnan 

Leland S. Meyerzone 

KPOO-FM 

P.O. Box 6149 

San Francisco, CA 94101 

GROUPS & INDIVIDUALS 

Albert Beck 
Eco/Plan International 
3028 Esplanade Street, Suite A 
Chico, CA 95973-4924 

Chas. E. Chase, Exec. Director 
San Francisco Architectural Heritage 
2007 Frankhn Street 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Greenwood Press, Inc. 
P.O. Box 5007 
Westport, Conn 06881-9900 
Attn: Eric LeStrange 

Alice Suet Yee Barkley, Esq. 
30 Blackstone Court 
San Francisco, CA 94123 

Sue C. Hestor 

Attomey-at-Law 

870 Market Street, Room 1 128 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Reuben & Alter 

235 Pine Street, 16 Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

S.F. Planning & Urban Research Ass'n. 

312 Sutter Street 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Attn.: James Chappell, Exec. Director 

San Francisco Beautiful 

41 Sutter Street, Suite 709 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Attn" Dee Dee Workman, Exec. Dir. 



San Francisco Tomorrow 
41 Sutter Street, Suite 1579 
San Francisco, CA 94104-4903 
Attn: Tony Kilroy 

Joel Ventresca 

1278 44th Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94122 

San Francisco BayKeeper 

Building A 

Fort Mason Center 

San Francisco, CA 94123 

David Lewis 

Save San Francisco Bay Assn. 
1736 Franklin Street, Fourth Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94612 

Jeff Maimer 

Coalition for Better Wastewater Sol'ns. 

260 Ripley Street 

San Francisco, CA 94110 

Sandra Trelfall 
Public Trust Group 
P.O. Box 11520 
Oakland, CA 94611-0520 

ARC Ecology 

833 Market Street 

San Francisco, C A 94103 

Ruth Gravanis 

Golden Gate Audubon Society 
2530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite G 
Berkeley, CA 94702 

Sierra Club 

85 Second Street, Second Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 

San Francisco Chamber of Commerce 
465 California Street 
San Francisco, C A 94104 

Niko Letunic 

San Francisco Bay Trail 

Ass'n. of Bay Area Governments 

P.O. Box 2050 

Oakland, CA 94604 

Mike Thomas 

Communities for a Better Environment 
500 Howard Street, Suite 506 
San Francisco, CA 94105 



Nan Roth 

1436 Kearny Street 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Doug Gardner 

Catellus Development Corp. 

255 Channel Street 

San Francisco, CA 94107 

Janet Carpinelh 
934 Minnesota Street 
San Francisco, CA 94107 

Sophenia Maxwell 
1568 Jerrold Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

Ollis Burgess 

1773 Oakland Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Gerald Taylor 

Bayview Sand 

51 12 Third Street 

San Francisco. CA 94124 

Alfred Williams 

Alfred Williams Consultancy 

RO. Box 591180 

San Francisco, CA 94159-1 180 

Karen Pierce 

Health & Envir. Assess. Project 
Southeast Health Center 
2401 Keith Street 
San Francisco, C A 94124 

Corinne Woods 
Bayview Boat Club 
300 Channel Street. Box 10 
San Francisco. CA 94107 

Sandra Peterson 
Potrero Neighborhood Boosters 
347 Pennsylvania Street 
San Francisco. CA 94107 

Roger Peters 

Amador Street Tenants Assn 
1655 Chestnut Street #204 
San Francisco. CA 94123 

Julia Vicra 

Fncnds of Islais Creek 

6 Hillview Court 

San Francisco. CA 94124 



Case No. 1999. 377 E 



111 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vn. DISTRIBUTION LIST 



Jerry Bridges 
Marine Terminals Corp. 
5190 Seventh Street 
Oakland, CA 94607 

Anne Eng, Staff Attorney 
Golden Gate Univ. Law School 
Environmental Law & Justice Clinic 
536 Mission Street 
San Francisco, C A 94105 

Jane Morrison 

44 Woodland Street 

San Francisco, CA 94117 

Mohammed Nuru 
SLUG 

2088 Oakdale Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

Linda Richardson 
SAEJ 

198 Jerrold Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

David Gavrich 

ECDC Environmental 

Pier 96 Railyard 

669 Amador Street 

San Francisco, C A 94124 



During Associates 

120 Montgomery Street, Suite 2290 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

EIP Associates 

601 Montgomery Street, Suite 500 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Enviroimiental Science Associates 

225 Bush St., Suite 1700 

San Francisco, CA 94104-4207 

Nichols-Berman 
142 Minna Street 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
Attn: Louise Nichols 

Sally Maxwell 
Maxwell & Associates 
1522 Grand View Drive 
Berkeley, CA 94705 

Ron Foster 

Wilbur Smith Associates 
1145 Market Street, 10 Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Chi-Hsin Shao 
CHS Consulting Group 
153 Kearny Street, Suite 209 
San Francisco, C A 94108 



Pier 70 Advisory Group 
Joe P. Boss 
Jennifer Clary 
Meb Gordon 
Dwayne Jones 
Greg Markelus 
Paul Nixon 
Stan Smith 
Corinne Woods 
Shelley Bell 
Mara Brazer 
Tom Escher 
D. Carl Hanson 
John Killacky 
John Moran 
Mohammed Nuru 
Steven L. Vettel 
John Borg 
Charles E. Chase 
Susan Eslick 
Dennis Herrera 
Toby Levine 
Toye Moses 
Paul Sherrill 
Julia Viera 



Bobby Guillory 
Local 10 

400 North Point Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Claude Wilson 
SAO 

120 Jerrold Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94124 



Korve Engineering 

116 New Montgomery St., Ste. 531 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Steve Vettel 

Morrison & Foerster 

425 Market Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 



Jennifer Clary 

795 25th Avenue #3 

San Francisco, CA 94121 

Bob Cox 

Hanson Aggregates 
4501 Tidewater Avenue 
Oakland, CA 94601 

Beesian Yip 

Cooper White and Cooper 

201 California Street, Suite 1700 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 



Case No. 1999.377E 



178 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vn. DISTRIBLTION LIST 



LIST OF THOSE TO RECEIVE MAILED NOTICES OF AVAILABILITY 



GROUPS & INDIVIDUALS 

AIA - San Francisco Chapter 
130 Sutter Street 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Attn: Bob Jacobvitz 

Richard Mayer 
Artists Equity Assn. 
27 Fifth Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94118 

John Bardis 

Sunset Action Committee 
1501 Lincoln Way, #503 
San Francisco, CA 94122 

Bruce White 

3207 Shelter Cove Avenue 
Davis, CA 95616 

Bay Area Council 

200 Pine Street, Suite 300 

San Francisco, CA 94104-2702 

Michael Dyett 

Dyett & Bhatia 

70 Zoe Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 



Nancy Taylor 
Baker & McKenzie 
Two Embarcadero Center, 25 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 



th 



Floor 



Peter Bosselman 

Environmental Simulation Laboratory 
119 Wurster Hall 
University of California 
Berkeley, CA 94720 

San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth 

243 Bartlett Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 10 

Atto: David Jones 

Brobeck, Phleger, Harrison 
One Market Plaza 
San Francisco, Ca 94105 
Attn: Susan R. Diamond 

David Cincotta 

1388 Sutter Street, Suite 900 

San Francisco, Ca 94102 



Cahill Contractors, Inc. 
425 California Street, Suite 2300 
San Francisco, CA 94104 
Attn: Jay Cahill 

Chinatown Resource Center 
1525 Grant Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94133 



,th. 



Chicago Tide 

388 Market Street, 13"' Floor 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 
Attn: Carol Lester 

Chickering & Gregory 
615 Battery Street, 6 Floor 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 
Attn: Ken Soule 

Coalition for San Francisco 

Neighborhoods 
P.O. Box 42-5882 
San Francisco, CA 94142 - 5882 

Coldwell Banker-Finance Department 

1699 Van Ness Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Attn: Doug Longyear, Tony Blaczek 

Cushman & Wakefield of Cahfomia 

Bank of America Center 

555 California Street, Suite 2700 

San Francisco, C A 94104 

Attn: W. Stiefvater, L. Farrell 

Damon Raike & Co. 
100 Pine Street, Suite 1800 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 
Attn: Frank Fudem 

Verba Buena Consortium 
109 Minna Street, Ste. 575 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
Attn: John Elberling 

Downtown Association 
5 Third Street. Suite 520 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Attn: Carolyn Dee 

Farella, Braun & Martel 
235 Montgomery Street 
San Francisco. C A 94104 
Attn: Mary Murphy 



Larry Mansbach 

44 Montgomery Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Philip Fukuda 

TRI Commercial 

1 California Street, Suite 1200 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Gensler and Associates 
550 Kearny Street 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Atm: Peter Gordon 

Gladstone & Associates 
177 Post Street, Penthouse 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
Attn: Brett Gladstone 

Goldfarb & Lipman 
One Montgomery Street 
West Tower, 23 Floor 
San Francisco. CA 94104 
Attn: Paula Crow 

Gruen. Gruen & Associates 

564 Howard Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Jim Haas 
Civic Pride 

World Trade Center. Room 289 
San Francisco, CA 94111 

Valerie Hersey 
Munsell Brown 
950 Battery 

San Francisco. CA 941 1 1 

The Jefferson Company 

10 Lombard Street. Third Floor 

San Francisco. CA 94118 

Jones Lang Wootton 
7 1 One Embarcadero Center 
San Francisco. CA 941 11 
Attn: Shery l Braiton 

KapIan/McLaughlin/Diaz 
222 Vallcjo Street 
San Francisco. CA 941 1 1 
Attn: Jan Vargo 



Case No. 1999.377E 



179 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vn. DISTRIBUTION LIST 



Legal Assistance to the Elderly 
Brent Kato ^ 
1453 Mission Street, 5 Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94103 

Milton Meyer & Co. 
One California Street 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 
Attn: James C. DeVoy 

Cliff Miller 

970 Chestnut Street, #3 
San Francisco, CA 94109 

Robert Meyers Associates 

120 Montgomery Street, Suite 2290 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Morrison & Foerster 

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 

Attn: Jacob Herber 

National Lawyers Guild 
558 Capp Street 
San Francisco, CA 94110 
Attn: Regina Sneed 

Pacific Exchange 

301 Pine Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Attn: Dale Carleson 

Page & Tumbull 

724 Pine Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Patri-Merker Architects 
400 Second Street, Suite 400 
San Francisco, CA 94107 
Attn: Marie Zeller 

Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro 
P.O. Box 7880 
San Francisco, CA 94120 
Attn: Marilyn L. Siems 

Planning Analysis & Development 
50 Francisco Street 
San Francisco, CA 94133 
Attn: Gloria Root 

Mrs. G. Bland Piatt 
362 Ewing Terrace 
San Francisco, C A 94118 



Dennis Purcell 

Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass 
222 Kearny Street, 7 Floor 
San Francisco, Ca 94108 

Ramsay/Bass Interest 
3756 Grant Avenue, Suite 301 
Oakland, CA 94610 
Attn: Peter Bass 

David P. Rhoades & Associates 

364 Bush Street 

San Francisco, CA 94104-2805 

Herb Lembcke, FAIA 
Rockefeller & Assoc. Realty L.P. 
Four Embarcadero, Suite 2600 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1-5994 

Rothschild & Associates 
244 California Street, Suite 500 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 
Attn: Thomas N. Foster 

S.F. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council 
2660 Newhall Street, #116 
San Francisco, CA 94124-2527 
Attn: Stanley Smith 

San Francisco Conv. & Visitors Bureau 

201 - Third Street, Suite 900 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Attn: John Marks, Exec. Director 

San Francisco Labor Council 
1 188 Frankhn Street, #203 
San Francisco, CA 94109 
Attn: Walter Johnson 

John Sanger, Esq. 

1 Embarcadero Center, 12th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

Sedway Group 

3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1150 
San Francisco, CA94111 

Shartsis Freise & Ginsb^g 
One Maritime Plaza, 18 Floor 
San Francisco, CA 941 11 
Attn: Dave Kremer 

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill 
333 Bush Street 
San Francisco, C A 94104 
Attn: John Kriken 



Solem & Associates 
550 Kearny Street 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
Attn: Jim Ross 

Square One Film & Video 

725 Filbert Street 

San Francisco, CA 94133 

Steefel, Levitt & Weiss 
199 - First Street 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
Attn: Robert S. Tandler 

Sustainable San Francisco 

P.O. Box 460236 

San Francisco, CA 94146 

Tenants & Owners Development Corp. 

230 - Fourth Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Attn: John Elberling 

Jerry Tone 

Montgomery Capital Corp. 

244 California St. 

San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 

UCSF Capital Planning Department 

145 Irving Street 

San Francisco, CA 94122 

Attn: Bob Rhine 

Jon Twichell Associates 
70 Hermosa Ave. 
Oakland, CA 94618 

Stephen Weicker 
899 Pine Street, #1610 
San Francisco, CA 94108 

Calvin Welch 

Coimcil of Community Housing Orgs. 

409 Clayton Street 

San Francisco, CA 941 17 

Feldman, Waldman & Klij^ 
3 Embarcadero Center, 28 Floor 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 
Attn: Howard Wexler 

Eunice Willette 
1323 Oilman Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

Bethea Wilson & Associates 
Art In Architecture 
2028 Scott, Suite 204 
San Francisco, CA 941 15 



Case No. 1999.377E 



180 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



APPENDICES 



CHAPTER VIII 



APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A: Assumptions for Production of Construction Aggregates 

APPENDIX B: Land Use 

APPENDIX C: Transportation 

APPENDIX D: Air Quality 

APPENDIX E: Hydrology and Water Quality 

APPENDIX F: Hazardous Materials 



Case No. 1999.377E 



ESA 990267 



Souihfm Waicrfroni SE!R 



APPENDIX A 



ASSUMPTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATES 



As described in the project description of this report, several of the Industry Group project components 
are designed to respond to anticipated demand for construction materials - specifically, ready-mix 
concrete and asphalt. Estimates of such demand, developed by the project sponsors (Industry Group), 
provide the basis for the magnitude of facilities and operations that would result from these project 
components. Two separate approaches were used to estimate the volume of ready-mix concrete and 
asphalt expected to be produced by the Industry Group facilities proposed for the Southern Waterfront. 
In one case, firms proposing to produce concrete and asphalt provided individual projections for their 
firms' future production volume. Separately, the five Industry Group members in the business of 
producing and/or importing construction-related aggregate materials jointly provided a consensus 
estimate of existing and near-term market demand for ready-mix concrete and asphalt, as well as of the 
likely sources of raw materials for the production of these materials.^ 

Table A-1 compares the individual production forecasts to the consensus market demand for both ready- 
mix concrete and asphalt. As shown in Table A-1, these individual forecasts, taken together, are greater 
than the overall market estimates, which is not surprising in that each producer would attempt to gain the 
greatest possible market share. Furthermore, the forecasts and projections discussed herein do not 
account for production by other, non-Industry Group producers, and are therefore somewhat 
conservative, because the numbers in this section assume that the Industry Group would meet the entire 
demand for concrete and asphalt in the San Francisco market. Therefore, actual Industry Group 
production may be lower than the volumes described in this SEIR.^ 

Planning Department and Port staff, along with the EIR consultants, reviewed current production 
volumes by local concrete-producing members of the Industry Group (Bode Gravel Company and RMC 
Pacific Materials), along with the estimates and forecasts provided by the Industry Group, and 
determined that the production assumptions in this SEIR should be based on the Industry Group 



The market for ready-mix concrete and asphalt (also known as asphaltic concrete) is geographically limited because the 
weight of the finished product results in relatively high transportation costs over long distances. This is particularly true for 
concrete, which contains a large amount of water. Therefore, the market for ready-mix concrete produced in San Francisco is 
normally limited to the City itself and northern areas of San Mateo County. Asphalt, which is not currently produced in 
San Francisco (except for a small amount produced for City use by a Department of Public Works facility), is currendy 
brought to San Francisco from Berkeley and northern San Mateo County plants. 

Note also that there are existing ready-mix concrete producers in San Francisco and surrounding communities, which meet 
some of the market demand; that is, the Industry Group ready-mix producers, which currently compete against these other 
suppliers, do not currendy and would not in the futiu-e be expected to capture 100 percent of the ready-mix concrete market. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



A.l 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 



A. ASSUMPTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATES 

TABLE A-l 

ANNUAL PRODUCTION PROJECTIONS FOR CONCRETE AND ASPHALT 

Concrete Producer Annual Production (cu. yd. ) ' 

Bode Gravel 500,000 

British Pacific Aggregates^ 150,000 

RMC Pacific 200,000 

TOTAL 850,000 

Market Projection 650,000 



ASPHALT Producer Annual Production (Tons ) 

Mission Valley Rock 400,000 

British Pacific Aggregates^ 150,000 

TOTAL 550,000 

Market Projection 400,000 



^ One cubic yard of concrete weighs approximately two tons (NRMCA, 1999). 

2 As noted in the text, British Pacific Aggregates (BPA) is not assumed in this SEER analysis to produce concrete or asphalt. 
To the extent that BPA were to engage in such production, effects would be "shifted" slightly in location but would not be 
materially different than production impacts occurring at nearby producers. 

SOURCE: Industry Group projections 



consensus market estimate for the near-term analysis (i.e., existing-plus-Industry Group and Phase I 
scenarios), given the Industry Group members' knowledge of market conditions. The Department and 
the Port also determined that the sum of the individual Industry Group members' production 
projections - even if somewhat greater than market conditions might support - should be the basis for 
the longer-range (cumulative) impacts analysis of 2015 conditions to provide for an outside estimate of 
future conditions. Thus, the analysis of Phase I conditions is based on overall annual production b\ the 
Industry Group members of 650,000 cubic yards of ready-mix concrete and 400,000 tons of asphalt, 
while the analysis of Phase II conditions assumes 850,000 cubic yards of concrete and 550.0(X) tons of 
asphalt. 

Also included in the assumptions is a shift in the source of some of the sand, gravel, and cru.shed rock 
("aggregates") used in the production of concrete and asphalt from primarily local sources (mostly 
quarries near Pleasanton) from where material is brought in by truck, to sources in the Pacific Northwest 
and Canada from where material would be brought in by ship. This shift is anticipated to be induced by 
declining reserves in local quarries, and would be facilitated by the proposed waterside locations of the 



Case No. 1999.377E 



A. 2 

ESA 990267 



S(yn!lu-rn Wntfrfronl SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 



A. ASSUMPTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATES 



Industry Group members. That is, the proposed project sites were selected, in part, to allow for direct 
import of sand, gravel, and crushed rock in the future.^ 

The Industry Group estimate of the market for ready-mix concrete and asphalt is based on current 
demand for these construction materials in San Francisco and nearby communities (see note 1, p. A-1). 
Table A-2 sets forth the assumptions used in determining the concrete and asphalt production. It should 
be noted that the ready-mix concrete industry typically develops forecasts of market demand based on 
population and that, while economic activity may have short-term effects on production (for example, 
demand for concrete in San Francisco is relatively high at present due to the large amount of building 
activity; similarly, demand was relatively low during the early 1990s due to the recession), over time the 
volume of concrete used is largely a function of the overall growth in population. Therefore, as a largely 
built out location, San Francisco is considered a relatively "mature" market whose demand for concrete 
is more stable and somewhat lower, on a per-person basis, than that of a rapidly growing community. As 
can be seen in Table A-2, the existing demand for concrete and asphalt is assumed to continue 
unchanged in the near term at 650,000 cubic yards and 400,000 tons, respectively, and to increase in the 
longer term (2015). 

Because the Industry Group members provided varying individual forecasts of their ability to capture 
market share. Planning and Port staff, in consultation with the Industry Group and the EIR consultants, 
determined that for purposes of analysis, the production of ready-mix concrete under future conditions 
would be assumed to be evenly divided between the two local concrete-producing members of the 
Industry Group, Bode Gravel Company and RMC Pacific Materials, both of which are currently located 
on Third Street within the Mission Bay project area, at 16th and Mariposa Streets, respectively. This 
assumption would result in an equal split in ready-mix concrete production north and south of Islais 
Creek, as the Bode facility would be located at Pier 92, on the south side of the creek, and the RMC 
Pacific plant would be located at Pier 80, on the north side. As noted above, there are other concrete 
producers in San Francisco - currently operating on Port land in the Southern Waterfront both north and 
south of Islais Creek- that are not part of the Industry Group. However, Bode and RMC are the two 
largest producers in San Francisco, and assigning the entire production volume assumed in this EIR to 
them is a reasonable, if conservative, assumption. To the extent that other existing concrete producers 
continue to capture a share of the ready-mix market, or even increase their share, the production 
estimates stated herein may be overstated. 

Another member of the Industry Group, British Pacific Aggregates (BPA), has indicated potential future 
plans to produce ready-mix concrete, at Pier 94, as noted in Table A-1. This operation is proposed in 
conjunction with BPA's proposal to import aggregate (sand and gravel) by ship from British Columbia. 



The shift towards ship-bome import of aggregates from outside the Bay Area is generally consistent with information 
developed by the California Division of Mines and Geology in "Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials 
in the South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Regjon," by S. Kohler-Antablin, 1996. Open File Rejwrt 96-03. 



Case No. 1999. 377 E 



A.3 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 



A. ASSUMPTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATES 



TABLE A-2 

ASSUMPTIONS USED IN PROJECTIONS FOR CONCRETE AND ASPHALT PRODUCTION 



Long-Range Rture- 
ExiSTiNG Conditions^ Short-Range Future^ (2015) 

PARAMETER VOLUME PCT.^ VOLUME PCT.^ VOLLTVIE PCT.^ 



Concrete 

Total Production 
Inputs (mode): 
Cement (truck)"^ 
Cement (rail)'* 

Sand & Gravel (truck)^ 
Sand «& Gravel (ship)^ 

Dredge Sand^ 
Fly Ash^ 



650,000 cu. yds. 

183,300 tons 100% 
-0- -0- 

755,000 tons 100% 
-0- -0- 

220,000 tons 
-0- 



650,000 cu. yds. 

108,980 tons 75% 
36,660 tons 25% 

377,500 tons 50% 
377,500 tons 50% 

220,000 tons 
36,660 tons 



850.000 cu. yds. 

143,820 tons 75% 
47,940 tons 25% 

21 1,000 tons 20% 
844,000 tons 80% 

220,000 tons 
47,940 tons 



Asphalt 

Total Production^ 400,000 tons 

Inputs: 

Asphalt Cement -0- 
Crushed Rock (ship)io -0- 



' Industry Group consensus market estimate. 
^ Sum of Industry Group individual production projections. 

^ Percentage of input material delivered by each mode (e.g., truck and ship), where more than one mode is forecast. 
^ Cement delivered from Port of Redwood City. 

^ Trucked-in sand and gravel from local quarries, primarily in Pleasanton-Sunol area. 
^ Sand and gravel to be delivered by ship from Pacific Northwest and British Columbia. 
^ Dredge sand is from San Francisco Bay; this ongoing operation would continue at same production level. 
^ Fly ash is a powdery material captured from the exhaust gas of coal-fired power plants. It is used in place of some 
of the Portland cement in concrete manufacturing to help bind the sand and aggregate in the concrete. Some fly ash 
is currently used in local concrete production; it is assumed to replace 20% of cement in future production. 
^ Asphalt is not currently produced in San Francisco; 400,000-ton production is from East Bay and Peninsula. 
Crushed Rock to be delivered by ship from Pacific Northwest and British Columbia. 



400,000 tons 

20,000 tons 
380,000 tons 



550,000 tons 

27,500 tons 
522,500 tons 



SOURCE: Industry Group projections 



However, in discussions between Planning and Port staff and the Industry Group, it became clear that 
BPA's primary objective is the importation of aggregate, and that production of ready-mix. if it were to 
occur, would be an added operation that would result in decreased production of ready-mix concrete by 
one or more other producers. That is, demand for ready-mix concrete would not change because of the 
entry of an additional producer to the market. Therefore, this SEIR assumes that BPA would merely 
import aggregate for sale to other producers of concrete. If BPA were to begin production of ready-mix 
in the future, it can be assumed that there would be a shift in volume from either Bode or RMC Pacific 



Case No. 1999.377E 



A.4 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 



A. ASSUMPTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATES 



(or one of the other, smaller existing producers), with only incremental changes in traffic and air quality 
impacts, because of the relative proximity of all the potential ready -mix concrete plant locations. 

As for asphalt, the entire Industry Group output was assumed to be produced by Mission Valley Rock's 
proposed plant at Pier 92. Again, British Pacific Aggregates has noted a potential future intention to 
produce asphalt at Pier 94. Such an occurrence would be expected to result in a shift of asphalt 
production from Pier 92 to Pier 94, with little or no change in impacts, because the two facilities would 
be very near one and other. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



A.5 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



APPENDIX B 

LAND USE 

The following table and figure from the Waterfront Land Use Plan identify acceptable land uses in the 
project area. 



Case No. 1999. 377 E 



B.l 

ESA 990267 



Southern WiJttrrfront SEIR 



LU 

CD 

u 
(A 

O 
Z 

< 

Ui 

CQ 
< 



u 

< 

I- 
z 

o 

01 



z 

01 
UJ 



o 

LU 



S3!i!ipej sijods 



Ajisnpu] lejauso 



S3!i!|pej Ai|unuJUJ03 



suonn)!isu| JiLuspeJv 



S3sn jamo 



uououjojd/speji aiess|onM 



sSejo)S/Su!snoq3je/\ft 



(siuejneissj sapnpui) iiejay 



siaiOH 



luauiuiEiJSluS pue A|quj3ss\/ 



sjauSisaQ/sisiiJv 



sasn |ej3J3uiui03 



iei)uapisay 



sasn |C!)U3p]S92j 



aDEds uado 



SS333V }!iqnd /sajeds uado 



Suiguag lemouiaja^ pue Ajejodiuax 



jieddy dms 



asn Jaie/v\ puc Suiieog leuoiieajsa^j 



saD|Aja9 jjoddn; aiuiiuew 



sdms 3!J0)S!H 



sieog uo!Sjnox3 pue Ajjaj 



Ajisnpui Su|i|S!j 



(S) sasn auilluBw 



O t/» _ 

Z = i 2- 

=. .5 £ S 

^ s ^ 



< Ui X 



vO 



























































































< 




















< 


LU 




< 


UJ 








< 




UJ 






< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 














< 


< 




















< 


< 


















































< 






< 










< 




















< 


uT 




< 


UJ 


< 




UJ 


< 




uT 








< 


< 


< 


< 
























< 














< 




































< 




X 


< 


X 








< 


X 


















X 






< 










< 






X 








< 


< 


< 


< 








































































< 


uT 




< 


UJ 








< 




















< 


llT 




































UJ 




< 


































































< 






































< 




< 


< 




< 


< 




< 






< 


< 












< 




< 








< 




< 


UJ 




< 


< 
















< 














< 
























< 






< 






< 




< 




















< 


































< 




< 








< 




























































< 


< 




< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 
















< 


< 




< 


< 






< 


< 


< 


< 
















< 


< 










< 






































< 


























































< 


< 




< 


-< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 


< 

















_ o. 

^ a. 



=1 

— ~o 
S ^ 

a. ^ 

0.00 



G. 30 Q CO 

O ft-o 
7- "5 



'C'^ (N n o 

c. 5 rs. o CO 

< 5 < S 

Is ^ 5: 

c * ~ 



•j; e 



< r'^ •— 



5 E5 



u. o. - ^ 



c 
S O 

1 = 



— o. 



C r= u 

I ^ I 



5 S _ 

r* o IT 

5 S? o 

c - £ = 

r< <r ^ » 



Q. J= 
3 — 

£ S 



E .2 
re E 
E o 



a. 



oo — ' (u re o 

— O ■£ 4) 

= E 

o — — 



^ 00 



= Q. 



QJ O 

^ s 

•o =r 
c 

'5b y 
E 



re — 



.tr o* 



— on o a. 



oo ^ 2 re 



00 (-> 
C 3 

c r 
c re 
re ■ 

s: g ' 



■o — 



■a ^ — 



O 
m 



3 „° E 



.t d ~ 



o. ^ S 
5i .r: O 

re "5 -o 
^ ^ c 

— O) Or 

*0 1/* d, 

5 = Q. 
c < 

5 1-^ 



o. o 
Si 00 . 



= a. . 
o >■ 



i ° 



— < ro 



5 5 



(D w ~ 



^ o re 
^ — u> 



ft 



_0> 
XI 



re 



C — Q <y 

2 c r ;5 

S g "o 

oil 

~ ■= E 
o c ~ 

'fly 2 a* 
a: in O 



re g 



3 i_> 



5 _ 



5 o 
!£! E 




B.3 




B.4 



APPENDIX C 



TRANSPORTATION 

TABLE C-1 

VEHICULAR LEVELS OF SERVICE AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 



Level of Average Stopped 

Service Typical Operating Characteristics Delay /a/ 



A Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay. This occurs when 0.0 - 5.0 

progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most 
vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. The traffic 
operation can generally be described as excellent. 

B Level of Service B describes operations with low delay. This generally occurs with 5.1-15.0 
good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for Level of Service A, 
causing higher levels of average delay. The traffic operation can generally be described as 
very good. 

C Level of Service C describes operations with moderate delays. These higher delays 15.1-25.0 
may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Vehicles occasionally may 
have to wait more than one red traffic signal indication. The number of vehicles stopping is 
substantial at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. 
The traffic operation can generally be described as good. 

D Level of Service D describes operations with moderately high delays. Congestion is 25.1 -40.0 

more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable 
progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume/capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the 
proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Some vehicles have to wait more than one red 
traffic signal phase. The traffic operation can generally be described as fair. 

E Level of Service E describes operations at the limit of acceptable delay. These high 40. 1 - 60.0 

delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high 
volume/capacity ratios. Vehicles may be delayed through several signal cycles. The traffic 
operation can generally be described as poor. 

F Level of Service F describes operations with delay unacceptable to most drivers. This 60.0+ 
condition often occurs when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may 
also occur at high volume/capacity ratios below 1.00 with many vehicles having to wait more 
than one red traffic signal indicator. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be 
major contributing causes to such delay levels. 



/a/ Level of Service criteria are stated in seconds for a 15-minute analysis period. 

SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, Inc. from Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209. 
Transportation Research Board, 1985 (Updated 1994). 



Case No. 1999.377E 



C.l 

ESA 990267 



Soi4thcni Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 



C. TRANSPORTATION 



TABLE C-2 

LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS, 
WITH CONTROL ON MINOR STREET ONLY 



Level 

of 
Service 



Typical Operating Characteristics 



Average Stopped 
Delay (Seconds 
per Vehicle) 



B 



D 



Level of Service A describes a condition where the approach to an 
intersection appears quite open and turning movements are made easily. 
Little or no delay is experienced. The traffic operation can generally be 
described as excellent. 

Level of Service B describes a condition where one or more critical 
movement approach to an intersection is occasionally fully used and short 
delays may be encountered. The traffic operation can generally be described 
as very good. 

Level of Service C describes a condition where one or more critical 
movement approach to an intersection is often fully used and queuing may 
occur. The traffic operation can generally be described as good with average 
traffic delays. 

Level of Service D describes a condition of increasing restriction and fewer 
gaps in the major street traffic flow, causing substantial delays and queues of 
vehicles on critical movement approaches to the intersection during short 
times within the peak period. The expected delay for minor street traffic is 
long; however, traffic operation can generally be described as fair. 

Level of Service E describes the condition at which capacity of particular 
critical movement(s) is reached. It represents the most vehicles that any 
particular critical movement can accommodate; however, overall intersection 
operations may continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. At 
capacity there may be long queues of vehicles waiting up-stream of the 
critical movement, these vehicles may experience very long delays and 
potentially interfere with major street traffic flows. The traffic operation can 
generally be described as poor. 

Level of Service F represents a jammed condition. Insufficient gaps restrict 
the movement of vehicles out of one or more critical movement to the 
intersection. Extremely long delays occur, and drivers may select less than 
usual gaps, potentially affecting other traffic movements on the intersection. 
In such cases, safety may be a problem. This condition usually warrants 
improvement to the intersection. 



<5 



> 5 and < 10 



> 10 and < 20 



> 20 and < 30 



> 30 and < 45 



>45 



SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates, Inc. from Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 
Transportation Research Board, updated October 1994. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



C.2 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 



C. TR.'^lNSPORTATION 



TABLE C-3 

LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS WITH 

STOP-SIGN CONTROL ON ALL APPROACHES 



Average Stopped Delay in 

Seconds per Vehicle Level-of-service 

<5 A 

5 to 10 B 

10 to 20 C 

20 to 30 D 

30 to 45 E 

>45 F 



SOURCE: Transportation Research Board, Transportation Research 

Circular 373, Interim Materials on Unsignalized Intersection 
Capacity, 1991. 



Case No. J999.377E 



C.3 

ESA 990267 



Southi'ni Wairrfront SEIR 



Vin. APPENDICES 

C. TRANSPORTATION 

ROADWAY CHANGES DUE TO THIRD STREET LIGHT RAIL PROJECT 

As noted in the report text, the Third Street Light Rail Extension project will extend Muni Metro light 
rail service from the Caltrain Station at Fourth and Townsend Streets along Third Street to Visitacion 
Valley. This so-called Initial Operating Segment is anticipated to be operational by 2004; a future 
Central Subway is planned to extend the Third Street line beneath Market Street and into Chinatown, 
although funding for this portion of the project has not yet been identified. 

In the Southern Waterfront area, the light rail trains will operated in a dedicated center median of Third 
Street, meaning that the rail project will eliminate one existing travel lane in each direction on Third 
Street. The resulting configuration will include one rail track and two vehicle lanes in each direction, 
with a parking lane on either side, except between Cesar Chavez Street and Cargo Way, where parking is 
not permitted. On-street parking will also be eliminated on both sides of Third Street where station 
platforms will be constructed. In the project area, stations will be constructed at Mariposa Street, 20th 
Street, 23rd Street, Cesar Chavez Street, and Evans Avenue. As part of the light rail project, the 
configuration of traffic lanes will be changed at several of the intersections analyzed in this SEIR. Those 
changes will include: 

Third / Mariposa Streets. In addition to one lane being removed in each direction of Third Street for 
the light rail tracks, exclusive left-turn lanes will be created both northbound and southbound on Third 
Street. With elimination of parking on Third Street at the intersection approaches, two lanes will remain 
in each direction to accommodate through traffic. Westbound traffic on Mariposa Street will have three 
lanes (one left-turn, one through, and one right-turn), compared to a single lane at present. 

Third / 25th Streets. In addition to one lane being removed in each direction of Third Street for the 
light rail tracks, exclusive left-turn lanes will be created both northbound and southbound on Third 
Street. With elimination of parking on Third Street at the intersection approaches, two lanes will remain 
in each direction to accommodate through traffic (with one through lane shared by right turns). 

Third / Cesar Chavez Streets. As at other intersections on Third Street, one lane will be removed in 
each direction of Third Street for the light rail tracks; existing exclusive left-turn lanes will remain on 
northbound and southbound on Third Street, and two lanes will remain in each direction to accommodate 
through traffic (with one through lane shared by right turns). Also, an existing eastbound shared left- 
through lane will be converted to a second exclusive left-turn lane, leaving one through lane and one 
right-turn lane. There will be no parking on Third Street at the intersection approaches. 

Third Street / Cargo Way. On Third Street, one existing southbound through lane and an existing 
northbound left-turn lane for will be removed the light rail tracks; an existing exclusive left-turn lane will 
remain on southbound Third Street, eliminating parking on the northbound approach on Third Street. 
Two lanes will remain in each direction to accommodate through traffic (with one through lane shared by 
right turns). 



Case No. 1999.377E 



C.4 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vni. APPENDICES 

C. TRANSPORTATION 

Third Street / Evans Avenue. One lane will be removed in each direction of Third Street for the light 
rail tracks; existing exclusive left-turn lanes will remain on northbound and southbound on Third Street, 
and two lanes will remain in each direction to accommodate through traffic (with one through lane 
shared by right turns). In addition, a second eastbound through lane will be added on Evans Avenue. 
There will be no parking on the Third Street approaches to the intersection. 

The Third Street Light Rail Extension will also include a loop track at Third and Eighteenth Streets that 
will allow light rail vehicles to turn around and head back north on Third Street after passing through the 
Mission Bay area. The loop track will extend east to Illinois Street and south to 19th or 20th Streets. 
Also part of the Third Street light rail project will be a light rail vehicle storage and maintenance facility 
at the Western Pacific site at 25th and Illinois Streets. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



C.5 

ESA 990267 



Snurhcni Wiitcrfronl SEIR 



APPENDIX D 



AIR QUALITY 

EMISSIONS AND DISPERSION MODELING 

EMISSIONS 

Emissions from stationary and mobile sources related to the project were calculated for two future years, 
2003 and 2015. Stationary sources include units that will process and handle aggregate, asphalt, and 
other construction related materials. To calculate these emissions, emission factors reported in the EPA 
document AP-42 were applied to expected throughput for the two future years. Emissions from vehicles 
(autos, trucks, and buses) related to the project were calculated using the ARB emissions model 
EMFAC7G. For marine vessels, emission factors were based on emissions reported in the Booz Allen 
study on marine emissions. Tables D-1 and D-2 show detailed net emissions changes (maximum daily 
and annual) for the region. The tables show that emissions from ships are the major contributors. Most 
of these emissions occur when the ships are in cruise mode travelling as far as 20 miles from shore. 
Because most of these emission sources are large distances and spread out, they will have little or no 
effect on air quality near the projects site. 

Emissions that can impact PM-10 and diesel particulate were estimated for the stationary sources and for 
mobile sources serving the facilities up to 1.5 miles from the project site. These emissions were used in 
the dispersion modeling to estimate concentrations in the local neighborhood. Tables D-3 and D-4 show 
detailed breakdowns of the emissions for the stationary sources and for local traffic mobile sources. 

DISPERSION MODELING 

Impacts on air quality at sensitive receptors in the local area were calculated using the ISC3 dispersion 
model. Separate model runs were used to determine concentrations of respirable particulate matter 
(PM-10) and diesel particulate matter. The modeling for diesel particulate assumed a truck fleet mix 
averaging seven years, with the oldest truck being 14 years old. 

Emissions reported in Tables D-3 and D-4 were input to the model along with one year of hourly 
meteorological data measured at the Potrero Power Plant, located within the project area. Mobile sources 
(train, truck and buses) were treated as a series of volume sources, simulating line sources on roadways 
to and from the facilities. Table D-5 shows the maximum 24-hour average PM-10 contribution at off site 
sensitive receptors for the years 2003 and 2015, along with a breakdown of the contributions to the 
maximum concentration. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



D.l 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



•a 

u 

SI 



a 



« 
z 

o 



o 
o 
o 

.2-^0 



a. 



.2 o 
1 ^ 



£ ea 

w 
S 



O 



1 <^ 
« o 

.2 <M o 
£ 88 ^ 

u 
u 
s 



o 

O 



O 

O 



w 
w 

s 

o 



u 
o 

V 
D. 

o 



o o 



o o 
o o 
d c> 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o <s 
o — 
d d 



o m 
o m 
d d 



o fn 
o r- 
d — 



o n- 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o m 

O 

d d 



O OS 



o o 
o <s 
d >o 



00 o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



— o 

06 d 



O VO 
(N O 
On d 



d 



00 00 
c-^ d 



00 CM 

t- o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



cn o 



o — 

r-^ d 



ON Tt 

d 

ON 



— o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o 00 

o — 
d d 



o o 



o o 

O VO 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



d d 



O fS 

o 
d 



o — ■ 
o 00 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 



o 00 
o — 
d d 



o o 
o m 

d d 



o o 
d ri 



fS o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o 

o ro 
d d 



o <s 
o 

d — 



o — 

o 00 



o I 

CO o 

CO U 



o o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o 00 
o — 
d d 



o o 
d d 



o o 

d oi 



o v, 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o 

o m 
d d 



O fS 

o 



u 
o 



w 
o 

oi 

u 
o 

E 



u 

on 



o 



o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o cs 
d d 



o m 
o w-i 

d d 



o 
o 



O VO 

o o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o 

o m 
d d 



o — 

O <i-i 



o 
o 



O 'O 
O 

d d 



O (N 

o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o (s 
o ts 

d — 



o o 

O CO 

d rn 



o 
d 



O vo 
o <^ 



o cs 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



O 00 
O (N 
d CN 



o 



o o 
d cs 



es 




u 


ir. 




C 


Sou 


Tri 


>> 

b. 


a; 


C3 


5 


on 


E 




E 


Sta 


Co 



li 

V it 

M *^ 
« »> 

Z ^ 



=) 

x: 

u 
n 
o 

U 



o cs 
d ON 



o o 
d d 



— -<* 

— >/-, 
00 — 



cs 
00 cs 



00 vri 
CS — 

cs cs 



O 00 
d — 



o o 
d d 



— cs 

— 

00 



00 



C/5 i- 



r 

o 
a. 



1-^ 
06 



cs 



3 



< 
r- 

C 



Z 
< 
ac 
w I 



+ 



o 
u 

C >> 

.2 « 

M e 

.2 o 



lU IT) 

.E 5 



o 



O 

u 



O O 

d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 



O fS 

o o 



O li-) 

o o 
d d 



o r- 

O (S 



>o o 
lo o 
— d 



o o 
o o 



— O 

OS O 



Ov — 
— O 

d d 



o o 
o o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



O ro 

o o 
d d 



o oo 
o o 



o -« 

O Tl- 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



O CO 

o o 
d d 



o oo 
o o 



o — 
d d 



o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o <N 

o o 
d d 



o 

o o 



O Tl- 

o m 
d d 



o — 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



O cn 
o o 
d d 



o oo 
o o 
d d 



d d 



O NO 

o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 



o o 
o o 



O OS 
o — 



O (N 

o <o 
d d 



o — 

o r- 
d cs 



o m 
o — 
d — 



o o 
o o 
d d 



(N oo 
O Ov 



9\ 

r4 



e 
o 
o 



5 S 

§ ^ 

c 

.£ o 

E ^ 

t3 >« 
c 



O 



c — 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 



O Tj- 

o o 
d d 



o >o 
o — 
d d 



o — 

O 00 



<N O 
— O 



O O 

o o 



— (N 

o o 

vd d 



~ d 



CN — 

o o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o >n 
o o 



o _; 



O CM 
O CS 

d — 



o — 
o o 



o o 
o o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



O Tf 

o o 
d d 



o oo 
o — 
d d 



O (N 

o o 
d — 



o — 
o o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



O VO 

o o 
d d 



o ■<* 
O tN 

d d 



o o 
o m 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o \o 

O ro 

d d 



o 00 
d — 



o — 



o 
o 



o r- 
r- — 
— d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



f4 



00 

en 



o 
vri d 



2 r> 
~ o 



3 

O 



I i 

^ CJ 



° £ 

i I 

o S 

ca Q 

i35 U 



00 



<u 

o £ 
2 => 

|i 

CO Q 

55 u 



U3 

00 ^ 
ea 3 

|i 

ca o 
oo U 



00 t~ 

|i 

to o 

00 U 



(/3 
1) 

o 
is CiJ 

II 

CO U 



00 H 



Q. 

o 



> 

e 

o 



O CD 

® ■< 
£ 09 



9 

o 

PS 

O 

oo 



•S E 

" I 

A in 



u 
es 
o 



o 



O 
+ 

H 

•-5 

o 



CO 



■2 o 



e 
o 
o 

> es CU w 
o "O 

.2 !=- O 
«> O 



- O 
wo? 



lis/ 



O 

U 



o o 



o o 
o o 
d o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



O «M 
O — 

d d 



o to 
o t-- 

d — 



CM CS 
00 o 

d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



— o 
o 
00 d 



o vo 

CN O 



00 00 

r-: d 



— o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



O 00 

o — 
d d 



o o 
o >n 
d d 



o o 

O vo 

d cs 



o o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



O 00 

o — 
d d 



o o 
o >o 

d d 



o o 
o \o 

d oi 



p q 
d 



o o 
o o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o 00 

O — ' 

d d 



o o 
o <o 
d d 



o o 
o 

d r4 



o — 
d — 



o o 
d d 



CN CO 

d <s 



d o 



VO 00 

m 



o \o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 



o o 

O (N 

d d 



o to 

O v-1 

d d 



o r- 
o r- 
d oi 



o o 

O CO 

d d 



o <N 

o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o <s 

O CN 

d — 



o o 
o m 



O (N 

o 

d r-^ 



o 
d 



p o 
— • 



o o 
d d 



r- 

o6 (s 



r~- OS 
o >o 



00 



Si S 

o "a 

S 5 <^ 

M >>co 

£ 'J 

.S 

g „ Z 



o 



00 

00 O 

f<-i d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



O CO 
O fS 

d d 



o Tl- 

d d 



o o 

O fN 



00 

o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o 
m o 
\d d 



o — 



d 

ON 



CM o 

o 



00 m 

ON O 

d d 



o o 
o o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o 

o m 
d d 



O (S 

o ■<* 
d — 



o — 

O 00 

d 



<s o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o 

o m 
d d 



o cs 

O rt 

d 



o — 

O 00 



00 lO 

00 q 
cH d 



o o 
o o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o 

o cn 
d d 



o cs 
d ~ 



o — 

o 00 
d r-: 



O vo 

o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



O 

O fTi 



o — 
d — 



o 
o 



o o 



O fS 

o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 



O 00 

o cs 

d 



o 

d o< 



O rf 

o o 



o 00 
d — 



rn — 



o o 
d d 



00 m 



r- — 
o 



00 



o 

00 



VO 



4> 

u 
s 
o 

CO 



U3 



_ o 

C/2 U 



b OA 

c9 3 



CO Q 

CO U 



|i 

C/3 U 



1= Oi 

° £ 

ii 

oo U 



II 

o5 U 



00 ^ 

11 

CO U 



oo 



CO 



•i i 

ca Q 
CO U 



O 
H 



00 !— 



< 

a 



o 



o 



es 
> 

s 
o 



u 
o 



o 



a 

BO 

u 

on 

< 
ea 



w 

S9 
O 

cn 
v 

o 



u 

o 



I = 
1 I 

0£ > 

oc ^ 
ca « 
c 

Z ^ 



C/3 

u 
ca 
o 



o 
a. 



H 
e« 
O 
a. 
+ 

U 

u 
o 

Qfi 



o 

Urn 



•a 

c 

3 

o 



u 
u 
c 

u 

3 

c 



■a 

C 

o 



E 

Z 
o 



fN 

Si 

^ 

1 1 

c < 

— ID 

V I— I 

cn o 

qj . 

u u 

u n 

•!> 



O 



o 

°? 

Oo 

«! ' 

.2 § 

E < 
s o 

a i 

.1 
Z 



2 ^ 

S 1 
a. w 



O 
u 



3 
O 



c. 

o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



O (S 

o o 



O >n 
o o 



o r~ 
o 

d d 



o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o ■* 
o o 



o — 
d d 



o — 

O 00 

d d 



C/3 

u 

3 3 



55 U 



u-i O 
<J~, O 

— d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



— o 
o\ o 

d d 



o 



Z o 



:2 d 



— o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



\o o 
o o 



— fS 

o o 



— d 



»- D. 

|i 

ea Q 
55 U 



Ov — 
— O 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o m 
o o 
d d 



o oo 
o o 
d d 



o — 
o 

d d 



o — 
— o 
d d 



o o 
o o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o in 
o o 
d d 



o cs 
d d 



O <N 
O (N 

d ~ 



° £ 

on f" 
^ I- 

2 3 

|i 

55 U 



O O 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



O CO 

o o 



O 00 

o o 



o — 
o ■<*■ 
d d 



o o 



o o 
o o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o in 

o o 
d d 



o r^j 
o <s 
d d 



2 3 

|i 

55 U 



vo o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



O «N 

o o 



o o 
o o 



o 

O en 
d d 



TJ- o 

d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o 

o o 
d d 



O 00 

o — 
d d 



o o 
d — 



U en 
^ D. 

00 ^ 
^ i- 

|i 

ea Q 
00 U 



w 
o 

en 



> 

c 

o 



o 



en 



o 

.5 CQ 



u 

3 

O 

OS 

o 



o — 

o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o ro 
o o 



O 00 

o o 
d d 



o m 
o -t 

d d 



o — 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o vo 
o o 
d d 



o 

d d 



o o 

O 



u 

00 

^ 4J 
es 3 

|i 

ea o 

55 O 



O so 

o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



O ON 

o — 



o — 

o r- 
d cs 



O vO 

o o 
d d 



o o 
o o 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o vo 
o m 
d d 



o 00 
d — 



o — 

d o6 



C/3 

00 f" 

^ k. 

C B 

« 3 

11 

ea Q 

oo U 



li 

SI, « 
£ « 

OS 

« ii 

e 

Z ^ 



< 



o 
U 



o o 

O <N 

d d 



ri d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



5 ^ 



o — 
o — 
d d 



00 oo 
r- o 
d d 



o o 
o o 
d d 



o 
~ o 



00 cs 
rn d 



so cs 



I? 

< 

u 
o 
CU 



f5 



00 



0\ 



00 



r- 



o 



H 
0« 
O 

CU 

+ 

U 

"-5 

o 

CU 



Vin. APPENDICES 



Table D-6 shows the maximum araiual average PM-10 concentration contributed by the project (2003 
and 2015) along with a breakdown of the contributions. Table D-7 shows the maximum incremental 
cancer risk from diesel particulate emissions for 2003 and 2015. The risks were estimated assuming the 
ARB recommended unit risk value for diesel particulate of 3x10""* multiplied by the maximum annual 
average concentration from diesel exhaust. 

As stated in Section m.C, Air Quality, the significance criterion used in this SEIR to evaluate cancer risk 
is an incremental risk of 10 in 1 million (10 additional cancer cases per million persons over a lifetime 
(70-year) exposure, or a 1 in 100,000 chance of a single individual developing cancer, beyond the pre- 
existing risk) as the significance threshold, based on the BAAQMD's procedure for permitting of 
stationary sources, which typically uses 10 in 1 million as the standard below which individual projects 
may be permitted. That is, the BAAQMD normally will grant a permit for a project that will generate an 
excess cancer risk of less than 10 additional cancer cases per million persons. The 10 in 1 million level 
has also been established by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association as a significant 
risk threshold when carrying out health risk assessments under the Air Toxics Hot Spots Regulation 
(AB2588). Any facility that exceeds the 10 in 1 million risk threshold must notify the public of its 
incremental risk. 

It is important to note that the SEIR's finding of a maximum incremental cancer risk in 2015 of 9 in 
1 million does not mean that 9 additional cases of cancer would result. This is because each location 
(each sensitive receptor modeled) has a different incremental risk, with the risk of project sources 
contributing to an increased number of cancer cases decreasing over distance from the project area. In 
addition, many times fewer than 1 million persons would be exposed over a full 70-year lifetime at any 
given receptor. For example, the population of the entire Bay view-Hunters Point neighborhood in 1990 
was approximately 28,250; the number of persons living in close proximity to any specific receptor is 
much lower than that. 

It is also true, however, that the cancer risk from multiple sources of toxic air contaminants, some 
existing, some part of the proposed project, and some future unrelated sources, is higher than the 
project's incremental contribution to risk. As stated in Section III.C, the California Air Resources Board 
estimates the statewide cancer risk due to essentially all toxic air contaminants at 758 in 1 million, of 
which 540 in 1 million is due to exposure to diesel exhaust. Although the project would generate an 
incremental maximum cancer risk of less than 10 in 1 million, the project would contribute to a 
cumulative cancer risk from toxic air contaminants. 



Case No. 1 999.377 E 



D.6 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 



TABLE D-5 

24-HOUR AVERAGE FOR TOTAL PM-10 FOR PORT AND INDUSTRY GROUP PROJECTS 

Highest 24 hr total PMIO concentration in 2003 and 2015 is at the Youngblood Coleman Playground. Contributions 
of the various sources to the highest 24 hr average is shown below. 



Concentration Concentration 
Year 2003 (Hg/m^) Year 2015 (Hg/m') 



Industry + Port 


1.16 


Industry + Port . 


1.55 


Industry only 


1.13 


Industry only 


1.51 


Mission Valley Rock 


0.53 


Mission Valley Rock 


0.81 


Bode Gravel 


0.25 


Bode Grravel 


0.32 


RMC Pacific 


0.16 


RMC Pacific 


0.21 


Marine Emissions 


0.07 


Marine Emissions 


0.07 


Train Emissions 


0.06 


Port trucks 


0.04 


Port trucks 


0.03 


Industry trucks/buses 


0.03 


Industry trucks/buses 


0.03 


Train Emissions 


0.03 


Commuter Emissions 


0.02 


Commuter Emissions 


0.02 


ISG Resources 


0.01 


ISG Resources 


0.02 


BP Aggregates 


0.00 


BP Aggregates 


0.00 



Source: Environmental Science Associates 

TABLE D.6 

ANNUAL TOTAL PM-10 AVERAGE FOR PORT AND INDUSTRY GROUP PROJECTS 

Highest annual average total PMIO concentration in 2003 and 2015 is at the Youngblood Coleman Playground. 
Playground. Contributions of the various sources to the highest annual average is shown below. 



Concentration Concentration 
Year 2003 (Mg/m^) Year 2015 (Mg/m^) 



Industry + Port 


0.09 


Industry + Port 


0.12 


Industry only 


0.08 


Industry only 


0.10 


Mission Valley Rock 


0.03 


Mission Valley Rock 


0.04 


Commuter Emissions 


0.02 


Commuter Emissions 


0.02 


Industry trucks/buses 


0.01 


RMC Pacific 


0.01 


RMC Pacific 


0.01 


Industry trucksA)uses 


0.01 


Port trucks 


0.01 


Port trucks 


0.01 


Train Emissions 


0.01 


Bode Gravel 


0.01 


Bode Gravel 


0.01 


Train Emissions 


0.00 


Marine - Port total 


0.00 


Marine - Port total 


0.00 


Marine - Industry total 


0.00 


Marine - Industry total 


0.00 


ISG Resources 


0.00 


ISG Resources 


0.00 


BP Aggregates 


0.00 


BP Aggregates 


0.00 



SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates 



Case No. 1999.277E 



D.7 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 



TABLE D-7 

ANNUAL DIESEL PARTICULATE AVERAGE FOR 
PORT AND INDUSTRY GROUP PROJECTS 

Highest annual average diesel particulate concentration in 2003 and 2015 is at the Youngblood Coleman Playground. 
Contributions of the various sources to the highest annual average is shown below. 



Diesel Risk Diesel Risk 

Year 2003 (per million) Year 2015 (per million) 



Industry + Port 


7.48 


Industry + Port 


8.96 


Industry only 


5.10 


Industry only 


4.75 


Industry trucks/buses 


2.29 


Port trucks 


2.84 


Port trucks 


1.79 


Industry trucks/buses 


2.56 


Train Emissions 


2.23 


Marine - Port total 


1.38 


Marine - Port total 


0.60 


Port ships - Pier 96 


0.84 


Port ships - Pier 80 


0.54 


Port ships - Pier 80 


0.54 


Port ships - Pier 96 


0.05 


Train Emissions 


1.28 


Marine - Industry total 


0.30 


Marine - Industry total 


0.63 


Industry ships - Pier 90 


0.28 


Industry ships - Pier 90 


0.58 


Industry ships - Pier 80 


0.01 


Industry ships - Pier 80 


0.02 


Industry ships - Pier 94 


0.01 


Industry ships - Pier 94 


0.02 


Industry barges - Pier 92 


0.01 


Industry barges - Pier 92 


0.01 


Commuter Emissions 


0.28 


Commuter Emissions 


0.28 



SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates 




Case No. 1999.377E 



D.8 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



APPENDIX E 



HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 



RUNOFF CALCULATIONS 

See Bay side Cumulative Impact Analysis, February 1998, by HydroConsult Engineers. Rainfall Adjustment and Runoff 
Coefficient from Table Al, Islais Creek Area. Unadjusted rainfall from Table A3. 



Assumptions: 

Area, A (acres) 
Area (sq.ft) 

Runoff Coefficient, c 
Existing, from Table Al 
Proposed, paved 



131.26 
5,717,750 



0.603 
0.95 



Rainfall 

inches/yr (unadjusted) 
Adjusted rainfall 
ft/yr 

Flow, Q = c X i X A 



20.23 
22.25 
1.85 



Existing 

Q, existing: (.603) x (1.85) x 

5,717,750 



6,393,663.81 (ft3)/yr 
47,830,998.96 gal /yr 
131,043.83 gal /day 



Proposed Project - Industry Group 

new impervious, acres 
new impervious, sq ft 
Q, proposed: (.95) x (1.85) x 

289,660 
+ (.603) X (1.85) X 
5,428,090 

Increase 



6.65 
289,660 

6,580,055 (ft3) / yr 
49,225,391 gal/yr 
134,864 gal /day 
1,394,392 gal/yr 
3,820 gal / day 



Proposed Project - Port Development 

new impervious, acres 
new impervious, sq ft 
Q, proposed: (.95) x (1.85) x 

2,593,080 
+ (.603) X (1.85) X 

3,124,670 

Increase 



59.53 
2,593,080 

8,062,266 (ft3) / yr 

60.313.809 gal/yr 
165,243 gal / day 

12.482.810 gal/yr 
34,199 gal /day 



% Increase 



3% 



Increase 



26% 



Proposed Project - Total 

new impervious, acres 
new impervious, sq ft 
Q, proposed: (.95) x (1.85) x 

2,882,740 
+ (.603) X (1.85) X 

2,835,010 

Increase 



66.18 
2,882,740 

8,248,657 (ft3) / yr 
61,708,201 gal/yr 

169,064 gal /day 
13,877,203 gal/yr 
38,020 gal / day 



% Increase 



29% 



Case No. 1999.377E 



E.l 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 



WASTEWATER CALCULATIONS (PHASE II) 



Use 


Size (sq. ft.) 


Water Use Rate 


Water Demand 


Wastewater Generation 


Office /R&D 


1,610,000 


102.5 


gay 1,000 sq.ft. 


165,025 gallons/day 


148,523 gallons/day 


Retail 


100,000 


95 


gay 1,000 sq.ft. 


9,500 gallons/day 


8,550 gallons/day 


Light Industry 


650,000 


150 


gay 1,000 sq.ft. 


97,500 gallons/day 


87,750 gallons/day 


Maritime Industry 


200,000 


150 


gay 1,000 sq.ft. 


30,000 gallons/day 


27,000 gallons/day 


General Industry 


200,000 


150 


gayi,000 sq.ft. 


30,000 gallons/day 


27,000 gallons/day 


Total 








332,025 gallons/day 


298,823 gallons/day 



Office / R&D rate is average of R&D rate from Mission Bay SEIR (150 g/ksf) and Metcalf & Eddy, Wastewater 
Engineering, office rate (55 g/ksf, assuming 275 sq. ft. per employee). 
Retail rate from Mission Bay SEER. 
All Industry Categories use R&D rate. 



City wide wastewater generation 
Percent of City wide generation 



84,000,000 gallons/day 
0.36% 



Southeast Plan treatment 
Percent of City wide generation 



67,000,000 gallons/day 
0.45% 



Annual project wastewater generation 



109,070,213 gallons/year 



Case No. 1999.377E 



E.2 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vra. APPEPrt)ICES 



F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 



APPENDIX F 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 



HAZARDOUS MATERIALS-RELATED CONDITIONS IN PROJECT AREA 

A database search was conducted to identify permitted hazardous materials usage and environmental 
cases within and adjacent to each of the proposed project sites. This appendix also presents a summary of 
the agency lists that were reviewed. The date of each agency list reviewed is identified in Table F-1. A 
list of those sites identified by the database search within or adjacent to a proposed project sites is 
included in Table F-2. Results of the database search, as well as information compiled in a review of 
Port records and those of the Department of Public Works and Department of Public Health and in site 
reconnaissance, are presented here. 

Industry Group Sites 

Pier 92 - Bode Gravel and Mission Valley Rock 

An Environmental Site Assessment was conducted for Pier 92 in support of the planned Bode Gravel 
operations (Treadwell & RoUo, 1999). This assessment provided a summary of historic land uses within 
the area that would be occupied by Bode Gravel and presented the results of a soil investigation 
conducted to comply with Article 22A. The information presented in this section is from this 
Environmental Site Assessment. An environmental assessment has not been conducted for the portion of 
Pier 92 where the Mission Valley Rock facilities are proposed. It is assumed that, based on historic land 
uses reported for the Bode Gravel site, that conditions encountered would be similar to those identified 
within the Bode Gravel site. 

Previous Land Uses 

The western portion of Pier 92 was used for fish canneries and reduction plants from about 1950 to 1966. 
Two fuel oil tanks and two above-ground fuel tanks were associated with these uses. These facilities 
were removed sometime before 1968, although several railroad spurs remain. No other land uses that 
would have involved the use of hazardous materials were specifically identified in the assessment. 
Historic land uses in the area surrounding Pier 92 were similar, including fish canneries and rendering 
plants. Machine shops and fuel storage tanks were previously noted on adjacent properties. This pier 
was also previously used by Bay Area Tank and Marine, a soil treatment facility. 

Site Investigations 

A soil investigation was conducted in the western portion of Pier 92 in 1999 to comply with the 
requirements of Article 22A. This investigation evaluated soil quality in the upper four feet of soil in the 
vicinity of locations where soil would be excavated (or construction of the proposed Bode Gravel 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.l 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 

F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

facilities and in the locations of the previous fuel storage tanks (Treadwell & RoUo, 1999). Laboratory 
analysis of these samples indicates that soil to be excavated could be classified as a hazardous waste on 
the basis of total and soluble lead concentrations. In addition, soil from one location contained total zinc 

at a concentration greater than the total threshold limit concentration."^ The concentration of total 
recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons in the soil samples ranged from not detected to 770 milligrams per 
kilogram. Volatile organic compounds including acetone, methylene chloride, carbon disulfide, 
chloroform, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes were identified at concentrations below their respective 
preliminary remediation goals for industrial land use, meaning that no remediation of these compounds 
would be required prior to reoccupation of the site for industrial uses. 

Groundwater samples from two borings contained total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, diesel, and 
motor oil at a maximum concentration of 84 milligrams per liter. Li addition, cadmium, chromium, 
nickel, and zinc were identified in the groundwater samples. The concentrations of cadmium and 
chromium exceeded the California Maximum Contaminant Level for public drinking water although the 
groundwater in this area is not used as a drinking water supply. 

Stockpiled SoU 

There is currently 15,000 cubic yards of soil stockpiled at Pier 92 on the north side of Amador Street. 
Approximately 7,000 cubic yards of the soil was left at the site in the early 1990's by a previous soil 
treatment facility that has ceased operation. Based on sampling conducted in 1997, approximately 1,000 
cubic yards of this soil would be considered a California hazardous waste on the basis of lead, chromium, 
and nickel concentrations. The remaining 6,000 cubic yards of soil would be considered a non-hazardous 
waste, hi 1999, approximately 8,000 cubic yards of soil was placed on top of the older pile by the Port of 
San Francisco; this soil was from the adjacent Pier 94. On the basis of sampling conducted in 1999, this 
recently added 8,000 cubic yards of soil would be considered a California hazardous waste on the basis 
of soluble lead concentrations (Treadwell & RoUo, 2000a). During a site recoimaissance in February 
2000 two abandoned drums were noted adjacent to the stockpiles (Orion, 2000). Environmental Cases 

The Darling International facility (formerly Royal Tallow & Soap Company) is located at 429 Amador 
Street, across the street from Pier 92. Royal Tallow & Soap Company is listed as a small quantity 
hazardous waste generator under RCRA (VISTA Information Solutions, 2000). This site also previously 
used three underground storage tanks, which were removed in 1991. Groundwater samples from wells 
installed when the tanks were removed contained toluene and xylenes at a maximum concentration of 8.8 
milligrams per liter. Agency closure of this fuel leak case was granted in 1994 (Treadwell & Rollo, 
1999). 

A 1,000-gallon fuel oil tank was removed from the existing Mission Valley Rock site in April 1998. At 
the time that the UST was removed, fuel oil was observed floating on rain water that had entered the 
excavation and soil from around the tank was visibly oil stained. Part of the stained soil was removed 
from the excavation; total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel was detected at 5,100 milligram per 



A waste is considered hazardous on the basis of toxicity if it contains the specified substance at a concentration greater than 
the regulatory levels specified in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 66261 .24(a)(2). These regulatory 
levels include the Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) and the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC). 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.2 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 



F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 



kilogram and up to 1 milligram per kilogram of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes were 
detected in the soil sample from this excavated area. A soil sample was not collected from the other end 
of the UST excavation because the soil at that end was reportedly "obviously contaminated". Total 
petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel was detected in the stockpiled soil from the excavation at 710 
milligram per kilogram and low levels of toluene and xylenes were also detected. The UST excavation 
was lined with visqueen and the stockpiled soil was placed back in the excavation (Camp Dresser & 
McKee, 1998). The San Francisco Department of Public Health has required additional action regarding 
this UST, although no further action has been taken as of May 2000. 

Hazardous Building Materials 

The existing Bode Gravel facility at 3*^*^ and 16* Streets would be dismantled and the existing building at 
the Mission Valley Rock site could be renovated as part of the proposed project. Depending on the age 
of these buildings, they could potentially contain hazardous materials such as lead-based paint and 
asbestos-containing materials. 

Pier 94 - British Pacific Aggregates 
Solid Waste Landfill 

Pier 94 is an approximately 96-acre partially paved site created by placement of inert and non-inert fill 
material to construct a marine shipping terminal. The fill is composed of a variety of materials including 
clayey soil and rock fragments, construction waste mixed with soil, dredge spoil, and miscellaneous 
refuse. A variety of earthen materials and debris (approximately 75 percent fine to medium grained sand 
with concrete, asphalt and metal debris, and household garbage) was placed over the site after fill 
placement ceased. Groundwater at Pier 94 is monitored in accordance with Closure Order No. 87-061 
from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Port of San Francisco, 1997a). 

Only a 14-acre section of Pier 94 is subject to the closure requirements of Order No. 87-061. In 1991, a 
preliminary closure plan was submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board addressing the 
following for closure of this section: reconstruction and grading, final cover, precipitation and drainage 
control, shoreline stabilization, geotechnical stability, and settlement. 

The Port has not received comments from the Regional Water Quality Control Board on this plan. The 
designs, grading plans, material and construction specifications, schedules and cost estimates would all 
need to be substantially revised prior to submitting the final closure plan for Regional Water Quality 
Control Board approval (Port of San Francisco, 1997b). Various options are under consideration for 
closure of the landfill (Tetra Tech, 1997) and selection of the appropriate option could depend on the 
intended reuse of the site. The Port is currently compiling and reviewing groundwater monitoring data for 
the landfill to further assess closure requirements as required by the Regional Water Quality Control 
Board (Port of San Francisco, 2000a). 

The paved portion of Pier 94 is located outside of the portion of the landfill subject to closure 
requirements and the planned British Pacific Aggregate facilities are located on this paved portion area. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.3 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 

F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Pier 90 - ISG Resources 
Previous Land Uses 

The existing grain silos at Pier 90 formerly stored grain that was brought in by rail and then loaded from 
the silos onto ships for export. These operations were discontinued following the 1989 Loma Prieta 
earthquake. 

Site Investigations 

A limited Phase I environmental site assessment was conducted for Pier 90 in November 1989. As part 
of this assessment, samples of sediments were collected from the storm drains and a pipe vault. Only low 
levels of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes were identified in these samples; the likely source 
was considered to be surface spills from vehicles. It was determined through conversations with PG&E 
that the two transformers at the site did not contain PCBs (Crosby & Overton, 1989). Abandoned wastes 
have alsp been identified at Pier 90 (Port of San Francisco, undated). 

Hazardous Building Materials 

The existing grain silos and associated control buildings at Pier 90 would be reused as part of the 
proposed project, requiring some renovations. Hazardous building materials could potentially be present 
within the silos although a survey has not been completed to establish whether hazardous building 
materials are present. 

Pier 80 - RMC Pacific 

The review performed for this EIR did not identify any site assessments or site investigations performed 
for Pier 80 in the area planned for RMC Pacific. This portion of Pier 80 is currently used for the storage 
of large steel pipes and beams and is currently paved. A railroad track traverses the site. 

Identified Environmental Cases 

There have been five environmental cases identified in the vicinity of Pier 80 including (VISTA 
Information Solutions, 2000): 

• Imperial Drayage, 715 Cesar Chavez Street, was identified as a CERCLIS site on the basis of 
above-ground storage of drums. However, this site was recommended for no further action. 

• The Port of San Francisco, 501 Army (Cesar Chavez) Street. Two underground storage tanks 
were removed from Pier 80 on July 21, 1987. Soil and groundwater sampled from beneath the 
tanks contained petroleum hydrocarbons. The excavation for one tank was lined with plastic and 
excavated soil was replaced directly into both tank excavations (Port of San Francisco, 1996). The 
location of these former tanks is within the gated area of Pier 80, outside of the area planned for 
use by RMC Pacific. 

• F J. Burns Draying, 640 Army (Cesar Chavez) Street. A leak of gasoline from an underground 
storage tank was reported at this site in 1999. The database review indicates that no remedial 
action has been taken. 

• Habenicht Howlett, 888 Marin Street. A leak of gasoline from an underground storage tank was 
reported at this site in 1987. The database review indicates that this case was closed in 1992. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.4 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 

F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

• Loomis Armored, 1060 Marin Street. A leak of diesel from an underground storage tank was 
reported at this site in 1989. The database review indicates that this site was closed in 1995. 

Hazardous Building Materials 

The existing RMC plant at 3'^'^ and Mariposa Streets would be dismantled. This building was constructed 
in the 1970s and on the basis of its age, could potentially contain hazardous materials such as lead-based 
paint and asbestos-containing materials. 

Pier 70 - Waste Management 

This portion of Pier 70 includes Building 116. The review performed for this EIR did not identify any 
site assessments or site investigations performed specifically for this building although it is located in an 
area that has been used for heavy industrial purposes, including the storage of petroleum products, since 
1895. The building is currently vacant and dilapidated. A sign on the outside wall indicates that it was 
previously occupied by Pacific Coast Steel Corporation. On the basis of the age and condition of the • 
building, hazardous building materials are likely present. On the basis of historic industrial land uses, 
soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected in the vicinity of this building. 

Pier 96 -Coach USA 

The review performed for this EIR did not identify any site assessments or site investigations performed 
for Pier 96. Abandoned wastes have been identified at Pier 96 (Port of San Francisco, undated). The 
existing building within this site would be renovated as part of the proposed project. Depending on the 
date of construction, hazardous building materials could be present within the building although a survey 
has not been conducted to establish whether hazardous building materials are present. 

Environmental Cases 

The database review identified a leaking underground storage tank site at Blakeway Metal Works, across 
Cargo Way from Pier 96 at 101 Cargo Way. Information available ft-om the database review indicates 
that a leak of gasoline occurred from an underground storage tank at this site in 1996 and only soil was 
affected. Soil was excavated and disposed of and the case was closed in 1996. Two spills were reported 
in the ERNS database at Pier 96 (VISTA Information Solutions, 2000). 

Potential Future Port Development Sites 
Pier 70 

Pier 70 and surrounding areas contain a solid waste landfill and numerous dilapidated old buildings. 
Previous land uses and underground storage tanks within this area have affected soil and/or groundwater 
quality. In addition, there are several existing land uses that involve the use of hazardous materials. A 
police impound yard currently at the pier contains numerous junked cars that could leak oils and fuels 
and subsequently affect soil quality. 

SoUd Waste LandflU 

Pier 70 contains a three-acre solid waste disposal site that includes four shipyard slips. The site was 
constructed of demolition debris from previously existing structures mixed with earthen material. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.5 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 

F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Deposition of fill material was completed, and the site was capped with asphalt in 1971. Groundwater at 
the site was previously monitored in compliance with Closure Order 87-060 (Port of San Francisco, 
1997a). On the basis of groundwater monitoring results, the waste discharge requirements for the solid 
waste disposal site were rescinded by Order No. 00-030 in April of 2000. This new order stated that 
available data for the solid waste disposal site indicates that the waste material does not pose a threat to 
water quality and does not require additional characterization or management as a landfill. (RWQCB, 
2000) Abandoned wastes have been identified at the Pier 70 landfill (Port of San Francisco, undated). 

Permitted Hazardous Waste Handling and Underground Storage Tanks 

Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Todd Shipyard Corporation, the Port of San Francisco, and Convoy 
Company are all identified as existing or former RCRA permitted hazardous waste generators at Pier 70. 
The database review indicates that Todd Shipyard Corporation received a RCRA violation in 1984. The 
type of violation was not specified. There are also underground storage tanks registered with the State of 
California (VISTA Information Solutions, 2000). Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Todd Shipyard 
Corporation, and Convoy Co. are no longer in business at Pier 70. 

Historic Land Uses 

A site history has not been specifically prepared for all of Pier 70. Much of the information provided in 
the phase I report for the mixed use opportunity area provides information regarding other areas of the 
Pier (Tetra Tech, 1998). On the basis of this assessment, several above-ground storage tanks have been 
historically been located within the Pier 70 area including: 

• A 7,500 gallon diesel fuel tank, 

• A 100 gallon lubricating oil tank, 

• A 4,000 barrel fiiel oil tank (195 1), and 

• Two tanks of unidentified volume (1977). 

The phase I report prepared for this area stated that the number and location of above-ground tanks 
varied over time. In 1995, the above-ground storage tanks were no longer visible in aerial photographs 
reviewed. 

On the basis of historic land uses and sampling performed, hazardous materials are suspected at Pier 70 
as follows (Tetra Tech, 1998): 

• Soil in the vicinity of Building 6 was reported to contain copper, lead, zinc, and PNAs. Additional 
sampling was recommended and there were plans to clean the inside of Building 6. There were 
indications that hazardous waste may have been left in Building 6; 

• Building 12 may contain concentrations of lead and cadmium; 

• There are reported releases of heavy metals from former site activities to areas south of the mixed 
use opportunity area; and 

• There were reported spills of hazardous materials in the old Convoy Company facility in 1987. The 
DTSC reconunended catch basins beneath drums used for oils, hydraulic fluids, and antifreeze. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.6 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 

F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Documentation reviewed did not show the location of this facility, but it is estimated to be to the east 
of Building 113. 

Environmental Cases 

Southwest Marine was identified as a CERCLIS site on the basis of a preliminary assessment performed 
for the site. The database review indicates that no further remedial action is planned for this site. This 
site is currently operated as San Francisco Dry Dock which is identified in the TRIS database. The San 
Francisco Port Commission was identified as a leaking underground storage tank site in the CORTESE 
database, however this site was not identified in the LUST database. Two spills were reported in the 
ERNS database at Pier 70. 

The Southern Company Potrero Power Plant (recently acquired from PG&E) is adjacent to the south side 
of Pier 70. This site has permitted underground and above-ground storage tanks, is a RCRA permitted 
generator of hazardous wastes, and is identified as an environmental case in several databases. Soil 
contamination has been documented at this site and free product has been observed on the groundwater. 
This is also the site of a previous coal gasification plant. Soil or groundwater containing hazardous 
materials from this site could affect construction projects within Pier 70. 

Underground Storage Tank Removals 

Tanks 104 and 105. Two fuel oil underground storage tanks (nos. 104 and 105) were removed from the 
east of Building 1 13 in 1988. Two soil samples and one water sample were taken from the tank 
excavation at the time of the tank removal. Soil samples from this tank excavation did not contain 
detectable levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons as oil, although oil and grease was identified at up to 
46,020 milligrams per kilogram. The groundwater sample did not contain detectable levels of total 
petroleum hydrocarbons as oil. Approximately 1/8 inch of free product was identified on the 
groundwater surface. Excavated soil and some imported fill were replaced in both excavations (Port of 
San Francisco, 1996). 

Soil and groundwater quality in the vicinity of the former underground storage tanks was evaluated in 
1997. The results of the investigation indicate that residual concentrations of total petroleum 
hydrocarbons as diesel and motor oil remain in the soil. A groundwater sample from a temporary 
groundwater monitoring well contained total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline and diesel at 430 and 
41,000 micrograms per liter, respectively, and trace concentrations of toluene and xylenes. On the basis 
of these results and the belief that the total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in the groundwater will 
decrease naturally through time (via natural attenuation), the Port of San Francisco has requested site 
closure from the San Francisco Department of Public Health, Local Oversight Program (Tetra Tech, 
1998). Tanks 3 and 4. The Port removed one gasoline and one diesel underground storage tank from 
further east of Building 113 in 1990. Soil samples from these excavations contained total petroleum 
hydrocarbons as gasoline and diesel at up to 710 and 5,6(X) milligrams per kilogram, respectively, and 
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes at up to 2,690 milligrams per kilogram. Groundwater from 
the tank excavations contained total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline and diesel at up to 2,700 and 
1,600,(X)0 micrograms per liter, respectively, and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes at up to 
152 micrograms per liter. These tanks were located within the backfill of a storm/sanitary sewer. On the 
basis of this, the San Francisco Department of Public Works agreed to re-excavate the contaminated soil 



Case No. 1999.377E F.7 Southern Waterfront SEIR 

ESA 990267 



Vm. APPENDICES 

F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

during construction of a new sewer line although documentation of this agreement and final disposition 
of the soil was not found (Tetra Tech, 1998). 

Building 117. Available records indicate that four underground storage tanks have been removed or 
abandoned near Building 1 17 although the documentation is poor. Apparently one 5,000-gallon and one 
2,500-gallon underground storage tank were removed from this site in 1990. Inspector's notes indicate 
that odor and discoloring were noted in the soil and a sheen was observed on the groundwater in the 
excavations. Available records also indicate that in 1992 a contractor filed an application to abandon one 
2,160-gallon and one 576-gallon underground storage tank (referred to as sumps) by filling them with 
sand (Tetra Tech, 1998). 

Hazardous Building Materials 

The vacant buildings within Pier 70 are in a generally dilapidated condition. Based on their age, they 
would likely contain hazardous building materials. There are electrical transformers remaining at Pier 70 
with PCB containing oil (Tetra Tech, 1998). These transformers are surveyed and retrofitted on a project 
specific basis and it would be necessary to conduct a survey of any buildings planned for demolition or 
renovation to determine if any PCB containing electrical equipment remains within a specific building. 
During a 1997 investigation, an oily substance on the wood floor of the machine shop in Building 113 
was sampled. Analysis of the sample indicated that the substance was likely creosote. The consultant 
analyzing the data concluded that the creosote likely seeped out of the ends of the wood floor in the 
machine shop and recommended capping or removing the contaminated portion of the floor to prevent 
human contact (Tetra Tech, 1998). 

Pier 70 Mixed Use Opportunity Area 

This portion of Pier 70 has been used for heavy industrial purposes since at least the 1890s. Most of the 
buildings at the site are currently vacant although San Francisco Dry Dock, a maritime facility that 
maintains and repairs large ships and freighters, uses some of the area for storage and a yard. This 
facility was formerly run by Southwest Marine. 

Historic Land Uses 

Historic uses of this area between the late 1890s and 1986 which may have involved the use of hazardous 
materials include: ship building companies (Union Iron Works, Bethlehem Steel, and Todd Shipyards); 
metal foundries; galvanizing shops; machinery warehouses; plating shops; machine shops; power houses; 
boiler shops; a transformer and compressor house; dry docks; planing mills; flange shops; press rooms; 
and lumber and iron yards (Tetra Tech, 1998). In addition, a coke pile was observed within this area in 
1900 and a pile was observed east of the area in 1914. Railroad spurs have historically crossed the site. 

B «fe C Metals formerly operated in the northwest comer of Pier 70. In 1996, vessels were dismantled on 
the northern concrete-paved boat ramp in Slip No. 4, adjacent to B&C Metals. Equipment, metal debris, 
and stained soil were observed on the northern ramp where dismantling took place. The soil on the 
northem boat ramp was identified as a hazardous waste on the basis of lead concentrations and in 
November 1996 all of the soil from the northem ramp as well as the adjacent southem ramp was removed 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.8 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 

F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

and legally disposed of at an off-site disposal facility. At total of 3 1 tons of soil were removed (Port of 
San Francisco, 2000c). 

B&C Metals used many hazardous materials including lubricating oils and flammable gasses, but 
documentation from 1997 indicates that B&C did not register them or comply with hazardous materials 
storage regulations. In addition, some vessels accepted at the facility contained asbestos containing 
materials and lead based paint although the employees were not trained to identify and manage these 
materials. In 1997 five vessels were stored at Pier 70 and three of these vessels contained asbestos 
containing materials and lead-based paint (Tetra Tech, 1998). The Port reports that four of these vessels 
have been removed and the one that remains is not believed to contain asbestos (Port of San Francisco, 
2000b). Activities at the former B&C Metals facility could have affected soil and/or groundwater quality 
within the Mixed Use Opportunity Area. 

San Francisco Petroleum Co., a bulk petroleum handling facility, is located across Third Street to the 
west. There are four above-ground storage tanks at this facility with dispensers and numerous 55-gallon 
drums were observed at the site in 1998 (Tetra Tech, 1998). This site is not identified as an 
environmental case in any of the databases reviewed (VISTA Information Solutions, 2000). However, 
such plants are commonly associated with soil or groundwater contamination. 

Environmental Cases 

A leak of diesel from an underground storage tank was reported at 680 Illinois Street in 1990. The 
database review reports that this was a soil only case and no remedial action was taken. The case was 
closed in 1992 (VISTA Information Solutions, 2000). 

Underground Storage Tank Removals 

One fuel oil underground storage tank was removed from near Building 101 in 1988. Two soil samples 
and one water sample were taken from the tank excavation at the time of the tank removal. Total 
petroleum hydrocarbons as oil was identified at up to 3,200 milligrams per kilogram and oil and grease 
was identified at up to 4,045 milligram per kilogram in the soil samples from the second tank excavation. 
The water sample from within the vault for this underground storage tank contained 16,000 milligrams 
per liter of total petroleum hydrocarbons as oil. Excavated soil and some imported fill were replaced in 
both excavations (Port of San Francisco, 1996). 

Soil and groundwater quality in the vicinity of the former underground storage tank was evaluated in 
1997. The results of the investigation indicate that only trace concentrations remain near the tank 
excavation. A groundwater sample from a temporary groundwater monitoring well contained total 
petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel at 1,100 micrograms per liter. On the basis of these results and the 
belief that the total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in the groundwater will decrease naturally 
through time (via natural attenuation), the Port of San Francisco has requested site closure from the San 
Francisco Department of Public Health, Local Oversight Program (Tetra Tech, 1998). In 1991, the Port 
removed two underground storage tanks from the northwest comer of this area of Pier 70, south of the 
former location of B & C Metals. The final confirmation soil sample from this underground storage tank 
excavation did not contain detectable levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons. Soil from the excavation 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.9 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 

F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

was transported to a bioremediation facility and the excavation was backfilled with native soil and clean 
quarry backfill (Tetra Tech, 1998). 

Site Investigations 

Illegal storage of hazardous materials was noted in Building 6 in 1983 including 80 drums of solid waste 
(two containing asbestos containing materials) and 200 drums of solvent and caustic materials. Many 
drums reportedly leaked. The soil investigation for this site identified metals, priority pollutants, and 
polychlorinated biphenyls. A site cleanup including soil excavation and building decontamination was 
completed under oversight of the Department of Health Services (Geo/Resource Consultants, 1990). 

In 1990, four borings were installed within Pier 70 in support of construction of sewer improvements for 
the San Francisco Clean Water Program's Mariposa Facilities. Soil samples from these borings 
contained detectable levels of methylene chloride and total petroleum hydrocarbons at up to 790 
milligrams per kilogram. Copper and lead exceeded the TTLC and mercury and nickel exceeded 10 
times the STLC in several of the soil samples analyzed (ERM-West, 1990). 

During installation of the clean water collection system at Pier 70, samples of groundwater and excavated 
soil were analyzed. The excavated soil contained copper and lead in excess of the TTLC and nickel and 
mercury at levels more than 10 times the STLC. Asbestos was identified at up to 5.8 percent in the soil 
samples; total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons were identified at up to 600 milligrams per kilogram; 
total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel was identified at up to 570 milligrams per kilogram; and trace 
levels of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons were identified. Groundwater samples from the excavation 
contained detectable levels of total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons, total petroleum hydrocarbons as 
diesel, and oil and grease. At the time of this sampling, the oil and grease concentration detected in the 
groundwater was 193 milligrams per liter of which 180 milligrams per liter was of petroleum origin. This 
concentration was greater than the permitted local sewer discharge limitations and treatment of the water 
prior to discharge was recommended (San Francisco Department of Public Works, 1991). 

Abandoned Hazardous Materials 

Approximately 10 gallons of lubricating oil were identified in the basement of Building 101 and one 55- 
gallon drum of lubricating oil (non-PCB-containing) were identified in Building 102 (Tetra Tech, 1998). 
Based on the heavy industrial use of buildings in this area, it is likely that additional abandoned 
hazardous materials could be identified. 

Hazardous Building Materials 

The vacant buildings within the area are in a generally dilapidated condition. They were constructed 
prior to 1950 and on the basis of their age, would likely contain hazardous building materials. In 1998. a 
survey was conducted to identify asbestos containing materials and lead-based paint in Buildings 36. 40. 
101, 102, 104, and 109. The survey identified asbestos containing materials in all of the buildings 
surveyed and lead based paint in Buildings 101, 102, and 104. In addition, other buildings contained 
paint with lead levels below 1 milligram per cubic centimeter which is the level used by the U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development for the identification of lead based paint (SCA 
Environmental, Inc., 1998). There are electrical transformers remaining at Pier 70 with PCB containing 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.IO 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 



F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 



oil and in 1998 there was a notice posted at the entrance to Building 102 stating that there is PCB- 
containing electrical equipment in the building (Tetra Tech, 1998). These transformers are surveyed and 
retrofitted on a project specific basis and it would be necessary to conduct a survey of any buildings 
planned for demolition or renovation to determine if any PCB containing electrical equipment remains 
within a specific building. 

Western Pacific Property 
Previous Land Uses 

The Westem Pacific Army Street site encompasses 39 acres of which 9 are tidelands. The only known 
use of this site has been for railroad purposes and the facilities that have been located within this site 
include an engine house/maintenance building, lubrication/fueling area, scale pit/pier demolition area, 
and storage area, hi 1935, there were four above-ground storage tanks observed at the site (Dame & 
Moore, 1989). 

Site Investigations 

During site investigations conducted at this site, lead and arsenic were identified in the soil at 
concentrations exceeding the total threshold limit concentration; polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons 
were detected in soil samples from throughout the site at a the maximum total concentration of 
7,889 milligrams per kilogram; and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons were identified in the soil 
at concentrations in excess of 1,000 milligrams per kilogram. Petroleum products, polynuclear aromatic 
hydrocarbons and metals were identified in the soil, and the groundwater was found to be affected by 
petroleum products, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, and lead. In 
addition, the off-shore sediments were found to contain polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and metals. 
Creosote treated wood and wood fragments were buried in the fill soils in the northeast portion of the site 
(Dames & Moore, 1989). 

In accordance with a request from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, a site remediation was 
conducted in 1993 and 1994 which involved capping the site to reduce the potential for infiltration and 
runoff. As part of this remediation, the following activities were conducted (Levine-Fricke, 1994): 

• Regrading of the shoreline slope; 

• Placing a geotextile fabric to inhibit migration of fines to the bay; 

• Installing riprap slope protection; 

• Constructing a 10-foot wide gravel sediment trap behind the riprap; 

• Regrading a 50-foot wide strip behind the sediment trap; 

• Placing a geotextile on the subgrade and paving over the geotextile; and 

• Constructing an 80-foot wide gravel transition zone behind the paved area. 

The San Francisco Municipal Railway plans to use the westem portion of this property for a light rail 
vehicle maintenance and operations facility and has conducted a Site Characterization/Corrective 
Measures study to comply with Article 22A. The Port is currently reviewing the data for the eastern 
portion of the site planned for Port use, and is conducting a risk assessment for various reuse scenarios. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.ll 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 

F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

The choice of uses would depend partially on the results of the risk assessment (Port of San Francisco, 
2000a). The database review identified this site in the North Bay County Toxic List, but no further 
information was available (VISTA Information Solutions, 2000). 

Pier 90 to 94 Backlands 

The review performed for this EIR did not identify any site assessments or site investigations performed 
for the Pier 90 to 94 backlands. A portion of the backlands being considered for development overlap the 
regulated portion of the landfill at Pier 94 (described under British Pacific Aggregates, above). Current 
activities at this site include Specialty Crushing, Tide Water Sand and Gravel (Hanson Aggregates), and 
the Port of San Francisco Marine Terminal. Specialty Crushing and Tide Water Sand and Gravel is 
currently located over the regulated portion of the landfill. Abandoned wastes have been identified at 
Pier 96 (Port of San Francisco, undated). 

Previous Land Uses 

A temporary soil treatment facility was operated by the San Francisco Department of Public Works at 
Pier 94. Abandoned wastes have been identified at Pier 94 (Port of San Francisco, undated). 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

Hazardous materials and hazardous wastes are extensively regulated by various federal, state, regional, 
and local regulations, with the major objective of protecting public health and the environment. The 
major regulations are presented below. 

FEDERAL REGULATIONS 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is the lead agency responsible for enforcing 
federal regulations that affect public health or the environment. The primary federal laws and regulations 
include: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1974 (RCRA); the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA); and the Superfund Act 
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). Federal statutes pertaining to hazardous materials and wastes 
are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR). 

RCRA was enacted in 1974 to provide a general framework for the national hazardous waste 
management system, including the determination of whether hazardous wastes are being generated, 
techniques for tracking wastes to eventual disposal, and the design and permitting of hazardous waste 
management facilities. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendment was enacted in 1984 to better 
address hazardous waste; this amendment began the process of eliminating land disposal as the principal 
hazardous waste disposal method. Other specific areas covered by the amendment include regulation of 
carcinogens, listing and delisting of hazardous wastes, permitting for hazardous waste facilities, and 
leaking underground storage tanks. 

CERCLA, also known as Superfund, was enacted in 1980 to ensure that a source of funds was available 
to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites, compensate victims, address releases of hazardous 
materials, and establish liability standards for responsible parties. SARA amended CERCLA in 1986 to 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.12 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vni. APPENDICES 



F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 



TABLE F-1 

SUMMARY OF DATABASES REVIEWED FOR EACH CONSTRUCTION SITE 

NAME OF LIST Responsible Agency Acronym Date of List 



National Priority List 


USEPA 


NPL 


Nov. 1999 


Comprehensive Environmental Response, 


USEPA 


CERCLIS 


Oct. 1999 


Compensation, and Liability Information 








System 








CalCERCLIS 


USEPA 


CalCERCLIS 


June 1995 


CERCLIS- FRAP 


USEPA 


NFRAP 


Oct. 1999 


Toxic Release Inventory System 


USEPA 


TRIS 


Jan. 1998 


Emergency Response Notification System 


USCG 


ERNS 


Aug. 1999 


RCRA Facilities 


USEPA 


RCRA-TSD 


Sept. 1999 


RCRA Large Quantity Generator 


USEPA 


RCRA-LgGen 


Sept. 1999 


RCRA Small Quantity Generator 


USEPA 


RCRA-SmGen 


Sept. 1999 


RCRA Enforcement Actions 


USEPA 


RCRA Viols/Enf 


Sept. 1999 


RCRA Corrective Action Sites 


USEPA 


CORRACTS 


Sept. 1999 


Annual Work Plan 


DTSC 


SPL 


July 1999 


Cal Sites 


DTSC 


SCL 


July 1999 


Deed Restrictions Properties Report 


DHS 


Deed Restrictions 


Apr. 1994 


Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 


RWQCB 


LUST Reg2 


Sept. 1999 


LUST Information System 


Cal EPA 


LUST 


Oct. 1999 


North and South Bay SLIC List 


RWQCB 


LUST 


July 1998 


Waste Management Unit Discharge Systems 


RWQCB 


WMUDS 


Feb. 1999 


North Bay County Toxic List 


RWQCB 


North Bay 


Apr. 1994 


Hazardous Waste Substance Site List 


Office of Planning 


CORTESE 


Apr. 1998 




and Research 






Solid Waste Information System 


CAIWMB 


SWLF 


Nov. 1999 


Summary of Toxic Pits Clean Up Facilities 


WQCB 


Toxic Pits 


Feb. 1995 


Underground Storage Tank Registrations 


SWRCB 


UST 


Jan. 1994 


Database 








San Francisco Current Active UST List 


SFDPH 


UST 


Sep. 1999 


Aboveground Storage Tank Database 


SWRCB 


AST 


Dec. 1998 


Water Wells 


USGS 


Water Wells 


Mar. 1998 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.13 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



< 

Ed 
< 

D 
O 
Q 

< 
N 
< 



pa 

< 

> 
pa 

o 



b 

P9 
< 



5 " 
2 



a! 

0^ LL, 



00 < 



* '5 
i/i 



on Z 



X X 



X X 



XX XXX XX 



X X 



X 



X 



X 



X X 



X 



X 



X X 



X XX 



X X 



X X 



X 



X 



XXX 



00 



CO IZ) 



o 
c 

> h3 
< ^ 

O ^ 



S « o o o o 

" '5 r~ t-~ r- 

C W 1-1 

O — .Si .Si .Si 



00 CO 

■S ■£ 
o o 

CM CS 



o o 
p p 



o 



o 
o 

ON 



o 

& 

o 

u 

7^ 



ca -s 



c !r! i 



— ? 

^ On 



a 



1) u 

(11 



O o 

CU Oh 



2. — 



O «J 
00 CO 



s ° 

-a 2 

'Z. CO 
oo <*- 

o o 
H a- 



o 
o 

CO 

O 

c 



o 

O 



> 00 



IS O 
O 

Q 2 

O C 

U T3 

■12 < 



c3 .23 c5 E 
^ C .s 
Ci4 g .ti 



ox i 
CJ — 00 



U 00 



ppooooooo 
< < 



o o 



X 



X 



X X 



XX X 



X X 



X 



00 



oooooooocoo^cooo 
>^ >v .5 .£ 



O vri 

ooooTf — ooocs 



on 
u 



r- (J 

Q o 

Q c 

§ i 

on 00 

00 00 1^ 

D 3 i 

o. o. cu 

IE IS tu 

00 00 oo 



o 

T3 
> 



CQ 



O 

c <u 

Q 2 



— c 

si 



13 



o 
E 

— •< 
= S 

U. o 

<" £ 



is 



!S IS 



— r~ 

<N CM 



^ d 



Q = 



(U I- 

E Q 



^cOOOOOOOOOOOO 



< 03 U 

oooocs(N(N«N<s«srom »f> 



«0 >r> 



X 



X 



00 00 « ^ 



00 00 

o o 

cd a 

E E 

< < 



r\ -m*. ^ ^ 



C O 
bO OO 

e3 ^ 



o 

U 

o 



■a 

o 



o 

— ' 

OO Q 



o 

^ Si 

u, i2 o 

CO CO CQ 



<N fM Tt \0 vO 
On On ij'^ On 



< < 
O O — m r<^ 
— — r-i Tt •^t 



C/5 
< 

ai 

yi 

O 
Q 
a! 
< 

< 



3 

u 

CO 

u < 



it* 

pa 
< 



< = 

Vj OX) 



02 O 



C/3 < 



(id 



C/3 



U a- CQ § 



O " 
— C3 



o u 



w .i2 <u 
c2 cs = t) 

UJ ^ Z U 



O 



3 



u 


c 










Z 


no 


OS 






02 




c 


0. 






00 








U 






a! 


ON 


On 


6 






Z 


1 


t 



- i 



CM CN 

ON ON 

o" o cs 

On On On 

o' o' o" 

OO 00 ON 



< 



s 

>> 

00 

c 



X) 



c 

C 
O 



c 
o 



> 




u w fti 



T3 
U 

c 
12 

CO 

X) 
cs 
■4— » 

"O 

X! 
o 

D 
<+- 
O 



c 

x; 
c 

,0 



00 



o 
2 



1) 
o 

3 

o 

00 



Vm. APPENDICES 

F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

increase the Superfund budget, modify contaminated site clean up criteria and schedules, and revise 
settlement procedures. SARA also provides a regulatory program and fund for underground storage tank 
cleanups and Emergency Planning and Community Right- to- Know Program (EPCRA). 

Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1 12 also contains requirements for above ground 
storage of petroleum products. In accordance with these regulations, a petroleum tank of greater than 
660 gallons or aggregate storage of over 1,320 gallons, which could reasonably discharge to a navigable 
water, is required to have a Spill Control and Countermeasure Plan (EPA Region IX, San Francisco, has 
taken a conservative stance, that virtually any large oil spill in California will enter federally regulated 
waters). The plan would include appropriate spill containment or equipment used to divert spills from 
sensitive areas, a discussion of facility specific requirements for the storage system, inspections and a 
record keeping system, security for the system, and personnel training. 

The federally published lists of sites which trace the status of suspected hazardous materials sites or 
identify sites permitted to generate hazardous wastes include: 

• The National Priority List (NPL), which prioritizes sites with significant risk to human health and the 
environment; 

• The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System 
(CERCLIS), which tracks contaminated properties identified under CERCLA and SARA; 

• The CalCERCLIS database containing utility descriptions for California CERCLIS sites; 

• The CERCLIS-NFRAP database which lists sites where, following an initial investigation, no 
contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly, or the contamination was not serious 
enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration; 

• The toxic chemical release inventory which identifies sites which have reported a chemical release to 
the air, water, or land as required by Title EI of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 
of 1986 (TRIS); 

• The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) which identifies spills of oil or hazardous 
substances reported pursuant to Section 103 of CERCLA as amended, Section 31 1 of the Clean 
Water Act, and sections 300.51 and 300.65 of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances 
Contingency Plan; 

• RCRA Information System which includes facilities permitted to handle hazardous wastes under 
RCRA including treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (RCRA - TSD); large quantity generators 
which report generation of greater than 1000 kilogram/month of non-acutely hazardous waste or 1 
kilogram/month of acutely hazardous waste (RCRA-LgGen); small quantity generators which report 
generation of less than 1000 kilogram/month of non-acutely hazardous waste or 1 kilogram/month of 
acutely hazardous waste (RCRA-SmGen); and facilities which have been cited by the US EPA for 
RCRA violations at least once since 1980 (RCRA Viols/Enf); and 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.16 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 

F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Sites (CORRACTS). This list, 
maintained by the US EPA sites includes RCRA permitted facilities that are undergoing corrective 
action. A corrective action order is issued pursuant to RCRA Section 3008(h), when there has been a 
release of hazardous waste or constituents into the environment from a RCRA facility. Corrective 
actions may be required beyond the facility's boundary and can be required regardless of when the 
release occurred, even if it predates RCRA. 

STATE AND REGIONAL REGULATIONS 

The USEPA has delegated much of its regulatory authority to the individual states. The Department of 
Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), 
formerly a division of the Department of Health Services, enforces hazardous materials and waste 
regulations in California, in conjunction with the USEPA. The DTSC is responsible for regulating the 
management of hazardous substances including the remediation of sites contaminated by hazardous 
substances. California hazardous materials laws incorporated federal standards, but are often stricter 
than federal laws. The primary state laws include: the California Hazardous Waste Control Law 
(HWCL), the state equivalent of RCRA; and the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance 
Account Act (HSAA), the state equivalent of CERCLA. State hazardous materials and waste laws are 
contained in the California Code of Regulations, Titles 22 and 26. 

The HWCL, enacted in 1972 and administered by the DTSC, is the basic hazardous waste statute in 
California and has been amended several times to address current needs, including bringing the state law 
and regulations into conformance with federal laws. This act implements the RCRA cradle-to-grave 
waste management system in California, but is more stringent in its regulation of non-RCRA wastes, 
spent lubricating oil, small quantity generators, transportation and permitting requirements, as well as 
penalties for violations. The HWCL also exceeds federal requirements by mandating the recycling of 
certain wastes, requiring certain generators to document a hazardous waste source reduction plan, 
requiring permitting for federally exempt treatment of hazardous wastes by generators, and stricter 
regulation of hazardous waste facilities. 

The HSAA, enacted in 1981, addresses similar concerns as CERCLA. The primary difference is in how 
liability is assigned for a site with more than one responsible party. This is important for petroleum clean 
up sites because federal law is usually used to force responsible party cleanups; state law is used for 
petroleum cleanup sites which are CERCLA exempt. 

Other relevant state statutes include: 

• The Toxic Pit Cleanup Act of 1984 and the Toxic Injection Well Act of 1985 which were established 
to provide a regulatory framework for open pits or injection wells as a means of hazardous waste or 
disposal; 

• The Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1986 which coordinates the state's implementation of 
federal landfill bans and authorizes landfill bans for non-RCRA hazardous wastes; 



Case No. 1999. 377 E 



F.17 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 



F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 



• The Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act of 1989 which requires the owner or operator of 
aboveground petroleum storage tanks to file a storage statement with the State Water Resources 
Control Board (SWRCB) if tank storage exceeds 10,000 gallons and holds petroleum or petroleum 
product which is liquid at ambient temperatures. In addition, the tank or tanks must be registered if 
they are subject to federal requirements; this potentially expands the requirement for a storage 
statement to any tank over 660 gallons or aggregate storage of 1,320 gallons; 

• The Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management Act which required large quantity 
generators to document hazardous wastes being generated and to prepare a documented waste 
reduction plan beginning in 1991; 

• The Hazardous Waste Treatment Permitting Reform Act of 1992 which required a permit for any 
hazardous waste treatment by a generator beginning on April 1, 1993. This statute established a new 
tiered permitting program whereby on-site treatment facilities are permitted or authorized to operate 
subject to different levels of regulatory requirements depending on the nature and size of the 
treatment activity. Amendments to this statute adopted in 1993-96 have enacted certain exemptions 
and modified compliance requirements.; and 

• The Hazardous Waste Management Reform Act of 1995 which required the DTSC to revise its 
regulations to more closely conform to federal hazardous waste identification criteria and essentially 
eliminate land disposal restrictions for California-only hazardous wastes among other major changes. 
However, many of these changes have been deferred to a DTSC advisory committee for further study 
and are not expected to be implemented for several years, and in certain cases, not at all. 

The published lists of sites, which trace remediation progress within the state, include: 

• The Annual Work Plan, formerly known as the Bond Expenditure Plan (SPL), which is a site-specific 
expenditure plan for the appropriation of California Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act of 1984 
funds. This list is no longer updated; 

• Cal Sites (SCL), which was previously referred to as the Abandoned Sites Program Information 
System (ASPIS), and identifies potential hazardous waste sites, which are then screened by the 
DTSC. Sites on this list which are designated for no further action by the DTSC were not identified 
by the database review; 

The California Department of Health Services- Land Use and Air Assessment agency also maintains the 
Deed Restriction Properties Report which lists sites that have entered voluntary deed restrictions. These 
restrictions are agreements with owners of property who propose building residences, schools, hospitals, 
or day care centers on property that is on or within 2,000 feet of a significant disposal of hazardous 
waste. 

The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is authorized by the State Water Resources 
Control Board to enforce provisions of the Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969. This act 
gives the RWQCB authority to require groundwater investigations when the quality of groundwater or 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.18 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 



F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 



surface waters of the state is threatened, and to require remediation of the site, if necessary. Both of 
these agencies are part of the Cal EPA. 

The RWQCB maintains the following lists identifying hazardous waste sites that were reviewed: 

• The Leaking Underground Storage Tanks list (LUST or LUST Reg2) and LUST Information System, 
which track remediation status of known leaking underground tanks; 

• The North Bay Spill, Leak, Investigations, and Cleanups list (LUST) which include various 
hazardous waste sites within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality 
Control Board and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board; 

• The Waste Management Unit Discharge System (WMUDS) list of sites which tracks waste 
management units. The list contains sites identified on the Toxic Pits List, which is required by the 
Toxic Pits Cleanup Act (Katz Bill), and places relatively strict limitations on the discharge of 
hazardous wastes into surface impoundments, toxic ponds, pits and lagoons (the RWQCB is required 
to inspect all surface impoundments annually). The WMUDS list also identifies sites targeted by the 
Solid Waste Assessment Program where there is a possible risk of solid waste disposal sites 
(landfills) discharging hazardous wastes, threatening either water or air quality; 

• The North Bay County Toxic List -Region #2 Surface Spills (North Bay) tracks additional sites 
under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) may impose specific requirements on 
remediation activities to protect ambient air quality from dust or other airborne contaminants. 

The California Governor's Office of Planning and Research annually publishes a listing of potential and 
confirmed hazardous waste sites throughout the State of California (CORTESE). This database includes 
input from many state databases. 

The California Integrated Waste Management Board maintains a list of active, inactive or closed solid 
waste disposal sites and transfer facilities, as legislated under the Solid Waste Management and Resource 
Recovery Act of 1972. The list is referred to as the Solid Waste Information System (SWLF). The Water 
Quality Control Board maintains the Summary of Toxic Pits Clean Up Facilities (Toxic Pits). 

The SWRCB also requires registration of above ground storage tanks subject to Federal regulations and 
permitting of all underground storage tanks (USTs) containing hazardous substances. The California 
laws regulating USTs are primarily foimd in the Health and Safety Code; combined with regulations 
adopted by the State Water Board, these laws comprise the requirements of the state UST program. The 
laws contain requirements for UST permitting, construction, installation, leak detection monitoring, 
repairs and upgrades, corrective actions and closures. In accordance with state laws, counties are 
required to implement a UST program and in some cases, the county requirements are more stringent 
than those of the State. Cities are also given the option to implement a UST program. The Regional 
Water Quality Control Board may also oversee corrective actions. Permitted above- and underground 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.19 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 

F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Storage tanks were identified in the Aboveground Storage Tank Database and Underground Storage Tank 
Registration Database (AST and UST). 

The United States Geologic Survey maintains the USGS Water Wells database (Water Wells) which 
contains information for over 100,000 wells and other sources of groundwater which the USGS has 
studied, used, or otherwise had reason to document through the course of research. 

LOCAL REGULATIONS 

In accordance with Senate Bill 1082 (Health and Safety Code 25404), administration and enforcement of 
major environmental programs was transferred to local agencies as Certified Unified Program Agencies 
(CUPAs) beginning in 1996. The purpose of this legislation was to simplify environmental reporting by 
streamlining the number of regulatory agency contacts a facility must maintain and requiring the use of 
more standardized forms and reports. In the City and County of San Francisco, the Department of Public 
Health is the administering agency for CUPA program. As the CUP A, this agency is responsible for the 
following environmental programs: 

• Hazardous Materials Business Plans; 

• Risk Management Prevention Program for Acutely Hazardous Materials; 

• Uniform Fire Code - Article 80, 103 b and c of the 1991 Fire Code (Hazardous Materials); 

• Underground Storage Tanks; 

• Aboveground Storage Tanks; and 

• Hazardous Waste On-Site Treatment by Generators. 

As part of the UST program, the Public Health Department is responsible for issuing operating and 
closure permits for USTs and overseeing such tasks as UST design plans, construction, monitoring, leak 
reporting and UST closure. This agency also oversees remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater 
at leaking underground storage tank sites in coordination with Cal EPA. 

The San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD), Bureau of Fire Prevention and Investigation, conducts 
inspections of underground storage tank installations and has permit authority over the storage of 
flammable liquids. The SFFD also maintains documentation of known above-ground storage tanks. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS BUSINESS PLANS AND INVENTORIES 

California requires submission of a Business Plan to the local administering agency for businesses that 
handle hazardous materials over certain threshold quantities. This document is used by the city and 
county for chemical emergency planning. The Business Plan includes an inventory of hazardous 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.20 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 



F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 



materials used at the site. However, the state definition of a hazardous material includes many chemicals 
that are common and not very hazardous. The Business Plan is required to include: 

• specific details on the business, such as name and address; 

• an inventory of hazardous materials used and stored; 

• a site and facility layout; 

• emergency response procedures; 

• procedures for immediate notification of the administering agency in the event of an emergency; 

• evacuation plans in the event of an emergency; 

• a description of the training employees have received in the evacuation and safety procedures; and 

• identification of local emergency medical assistance. 



HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WORKER SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 

The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Fed/OSHA) and the California Safety and 
Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) are the agencies responsible for assuring worker safety in the 
handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. The federal regulations pertaining to worker safety are 
contained in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29 (29 CFR) as authorized in the Occupational Safety 
and Health Act of 1970. They provide standards for safe workplaces and work practices, including 
standards relating to hazardous materials handling. In California, Cal/OSHA assumes primary 
responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations; Cal/OSHA standards are 
generally more stringent than federal regulations. 

The state regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials in the workplace are included in Title 8 
of the California Code of Regulations, which contain requirements for safety training, availability of 
safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and 
emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. Cal/OSHA also enforces hazard communication 
program regulations, which contain worker safety training and hazard information requirements, such as 
procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, communicating hazard information relating 
to hazardous substances and their handling, and preparation of health and safety plans to protect workers 
and employees at hazardous waste sites. 



HAZARDOUS BUILDING MATERIALS 

BACKGROUND 

Up until the 1970's, asbestos has been used as a common building material, including use as insulation 
material, shingles and siding, roofing felt, floor tiles, brake linings, and acoustical ceiling material. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.21 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 



F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 



Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and the primary pathway of exposure is through inhalation; if asbestos 
is present in "friable" (easily crumbled) form, then asbestos fibers can be inhaled. Depending on the 
conditions of the building materials, there is a potential for airborne asbestos fibers to be present in many 
of the existing structures in the project area. 

PCBs were commonly manufactured and used in the United States between 1929 and 1977 for uses such 
as electrical transformers and capacitors and fluorescent light ballasts. It is a highly toxic group of 
substances that remains persistent in the environment, accumulates in biological systems, interferes with 
reproduction and acts as an immuno-suppressant. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, Congress 
specifically regulated the use of PCBs. The manufacture, processing, and commercial distribution or use 
of any PCB was prohibited in January 1978, except when contained in a totally enclosed manner. As of 
January 1979, the manufacture of PCBs was banned, while the distribution of PCBs in commerce was 
banned in July 1979. However, utilities and other owners of PCB-filled electric transformers and 
capacitors were allowed to maintain the equipment for its working life, if it did not leak. The EPA Spill 
Cleanup Policy dictates that spills of materials containing PCBs at concentrations of 50 parts per million 
(ppm) or greater be cleaned up within 48 hours after the spill. If the transformer has leaked, the oil is 
tested to determine the level of PCB and the subsequent cleanup requirements. 

New transformers (installed after 1983) contain a nameplate that specifies the PCB content level, which 
is less than one part per million. If the public wants to have a transformer tested, there is a charge for the 
test, which varies on the size of the shutdown and the size of the transformer. If the transformer exceeds 
a PCB concentration of 50 ppm, the fee is refunded. 

Most fluorescent light ballasts manufactured prior to 1978 contain approximately 0.5 ounces of PCBs in 
a small capacitor; although, the quantity can be up to two ounces. In 1978, the U.S. EPA estimated that 
there were approximately 850 million of these capacitors in use in the United States. Disposal of more 
than one pound of PCBs, or approximately 16 capacitors, to a landfill would require notification of the 
U.S. EPA under CERCLA. Ballasts manufactured after January 1, 1978 do not contain PCBs and should 
be labeled as such on the ballast. 

Spent fluorescent light tubes commonly contain mercury vapors at levels high enough to be considered a 
hazardous waste under California law; depending on the levels of mercury present, the light tubes may 
also be classified as hazardous under federal law. 

Lead-based paint was commonly used prior to 1960 and these paints are likely present in buildings 
constructed prior to 1960. Lead is toxic to humans, particularly young children, and can cause a range of 
human health effects depending on the level of exposure. When adhered to the surface of the material 
they are painted to, lead-based paints pose little health risk. Where the paint is delaminated or chipping, 
the paint can cause a potential threat to the health of young children or other building occupants who 
may ingest the paint. Lead dust could also present public health risks during demolition of a structure 
with lead-based paint. Lead-based paint that has separated from a structure may also contaminate nearby 
soil. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.22 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 



F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 



ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS REGULATIONS 

Where demolition or renovation work will involve 100 square feet or more of asbestos-containing 
materials, the State law requires that the contractor be certified and that certain procedures be followed.^ 
Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, adopted January 1, 1991, requires that local 
agencies not issue demolition permits until an applicant has demonstrated compliance notification 
requirements under applicable Federal regulations regarding hazardous air pollutants, including asbestos. 

The BAAQMD is vested by the California legislature with authority to regulate airborne pollutants, 
including asbestos, through both inspection and law enforcement, and is to be notified ten days in 
advance of any proposed demolition or abatement work. 

Notification includes: 

• The names and addresses of operations and persons responsible; 

• Description and location of the structure to be demolished/altered including size, age and prior 
use, and the approximate amount of friable asbestos; 

• Scheduled starting and completion dates of demolition or abatement; 

• Nature of plaimed work and methods to be employed; 

• Procedures to be employed to meet BAAQMD requirements; and 

• The name and location of the waste disposal site to be used. 

The BAAQMD randomly inspects asbestos removal operations. In addition, the BAAQMD will inspect 
any removal operation for which a complaint has been received. 

The local office of the State Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) must be 
notified of asbestos abatement to be carried out. Asbestos abatement contractors must follow state 
regulations contained in 8CCR1529 and 8CCR341.6 through 341.14 where there is asbestos-related work 
involving 100 square feet or more of asbestos containing material. Asbestos removal contractors must be 
certified as such by the Contractors Licensing Board of the State of California. The owner of the 
property where abatement is to occur must have a Hazardous Waste Generator Number assigned by and 
registered with the Office of the California Department of Health Services in Sacramento. The 
contractor and hauler of the material is required to file a Hazardous Waste Manifest which details the 
hauling of the material from the site and the disposal of it. 



5 Assembly Bill 2040, Asbestos 1985, Added Section 24223 and Chapter 25 to Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.23 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vra. APPENDICES 



F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 



According to the BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, if a structure is to be demolished, friable and 
potentially friable asbestos must be removed and disposed of properly. Workers and the public could 
become exposed to asbestos fibers, as they become airborne during removal.^ 

The local office of Cal/OSHA must be notified of asbestos abatement to be carried out. Asbestos 
contractors must follow the State regulations contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, 
Sections 1529 and 341.6 through 341.14 where there is asbestos-related work involving 100 square feet 
or more of asbestos-containing materials. Asbestos removal contractors must be certified as such by the 
Contractors Licensing Board of the State of California. Pursuant to California law, the required permit 
would not be issued until the applicant has complied with the notice requirements above as well as 
requirements for proper waste disposal (described below). 

LEAD BASED PAINT REGULATIONS 

In accordance with regulatory guidance, lead-based paint waste that has been separated from building 
materials (such as delaminated or chipping paint) must be evaluated separately from other building 
materials for waste disposal purposes during building demolition. Accordingly, any chipping or 
delaminated paint would need to be removed before any renovation or demolition activities. Depending 
on the level of lead identified in the paint, it may require disposal as a hazardous waste. Building 
materials which still have the paint adhered to them may generally be disposed of as regular construction 
debris, regardless of the lead level in the paint. 

The Lead in Construction Standard contained in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 
1926.62 applies to the removal of chipping or delaminated lead-based paint. In accordance with this 
standard, it will be necessary for workers to wear respiratory protection until the work is completed or 
until an employee exposure assessment can demonstrate that air lead levels during scraping are below the 
permissible exposure limit (PEL). Other applicable requirements of the standard include worker 
awareness training, use of protective clothing, provisions for change areas and hand washing facilities, 
biological monitoring, and development of a site specific compliance program. California regulations 
(Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1) relating to the abatement of lead-based 
paint are similar to the Federal regulations. 

Chapter 36 of the San Francisco Building Code establishes requirements for property owners and 
contractors who engage in activities within San Francisco that remove or disturb lead-based paint on the 
exteriors of buildings and steel structures. The ordinance contains performance standards, including 
establishment of containment barriers that are at least as effective at protecting human health and the 
environment as those in the most recent Guidelines for Evaluation and control of Lead-Based Paint 
Hazards promulgated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Any building 
completed prior to 1978 would be presumed to have been painted with lead paint unless proven 
otherwise. 



Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Rules and Regulations, Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos Demolition, Renovation 
and Manufacturing, adopted May 1981. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.24 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 



F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 



Specific elements of this ordinance, implemented and enforced by the San Francisco Department of 
Building Inspection, include a requirement for a containment barrier around any work involving lead 
paint. For activities involving abrasive blasting, hydroblasting, scraping, or sanding of lead- painted 
exterior surfaces a HEPA vacuum may be required. Burning, torching, or similar activities are prohibited. 
Following completion of work involving lead paint, all visible lead paint contaminants must be removed 
from the work site. 

In addition, the ordinance requires the following notification requirements when the total area of lead 
paint to be disturbed or removed exceeds 10 square feet: 

• Notification of the DBI by the owner or contractor the nature and location of the work, prior to 
starting work,; 

• A posted sign at all work sites where containment is required stating that lead work is in progress and 
that public access is prohibited; 

• A posted sign at sites where lead paint is being disturbed and lead dust or soil testing indicates the 
presence of contaminated soil or dust. The sign would indicate the presence of the contamination 
identified. 



POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS) 

The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, contains the Toxic Substances Control Act regulations. This 
Act restricts the use and storage of PCB-containing transformers (defined as those containing at least 500 
parts per million PCBs). The EPA also requires that all PCB-containing transformers be registered with 
fire protection personnel, whether in use or in storage, and that they be inspected every three months. If 
a leak is found, it must be contained to prevent release and exposure, and then be eliminated. 



WASTE DISPOSAL REGULATIONS 

All California landfills have been segregated by regulatory authority into the categories of Class I, Class 
n and Class HI facilities. Class I facilities can accept hazardous wastes with chemical levels below the 
federal land disposal restriction (land ban) treatment standards. Class n and HI facilities can accept non- 
hazardous wastes that meet acceptance criteria determined by the State for organic and inorganic 
compounds; each landfill has individual acceptance criteria. 

The disposal of soil is regulated by the RWQCB and will be predicated on the concentrations of the 
chemical constituents that are present. Soil with total petroleum hydrocarbon or organic compound 
concentrations above the detection limit must be disposed of at an appropriately landfill facility or treated 
to reduce the levels of chemicals in the soil; the concentration of the compounds present will determine 
the appropriate type of disposal facility. In general, soil with total petroleum hydrocarbon levels up to 
100 milligrams per kilogram can be disposed of at a Class EI disposal facility. If the concentration is 
between 100 and 1,000 milligrams per kilogram and be disposed of at a Class n disposal facility and if 
the concentration is greater than 1,000 milligrams per kilogram. Class I disposal would be required. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.25 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 

F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

The disposal alternative is also predicated on the total and soluble concentrations of metals. Soil with 
total metal concentrations that are above the Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) and soluble 
metal concentrations that are above the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) must be disposed 
of at a Class I disposal facility or treated.^ The Class n and IE landfills in the Bay Area have acceptance 
criteria for lead that are lower than the STLC. 

Soil with no concentrations of organic chemicals above detection limit and total and soluble metal 
concentrations that are below the TTLC and STLC may be used on-site or transported off-site as 
unrestricted waste. 

Lead-based paint would be considered a hazardous waste because the total lead concentration would be 
greater than the TTLC of 1,000 milligrams per kilogram. It would be necessary to dispose of the paint at 
a Class I facility. 

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control has classified friable, finely divided and 
powdered wastes containing greater than one- percent asbestos as a hazardous waste. ^ A friable waste 
can be reduced to powder or dust under hand pressure when dry. Non-friable asbestos-containing wastes 
are not considered hazardous and are not subject to regulation under Title 22, Division 4.5 of the 
California Code of Regulations. The management of these wastes would still be subject to any 
requirements or restrictions, which may be imposed by other regulatory agencies. The State standard for 
classification of asbestos wastes is contained in Section 66261.24 of Title 22 of the California Code of 
Regulations. Asbestos is not currently regulated as a hazardous waste under the RCRA; because of this it 
is considered a non-RCRA waste. Asbestos wastes, totaling more than 50 pounds, must be transported 
by a registered waste hauler to an approved treatment, storage or disposal facility. 

"Wastes containing asbestos may be disposed of at any landfill, which has waste discharge requirements 
issued by the RWQCB, which allow disposal of asbestos-containing materials, provided that the wastes 
are handled and disposed of in accordance with the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Clean Air Act's 
National emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and Title 22 of the Code of California 



The total threshold limit concentration (TTLC) and the soluble threshold limit concentration (STLC) are criteria used for 
waste classification purposes. If the waste contains a total concentration of a constituent and a concentration greater than the 
TTLC, it is considered a hazardous waste., If die total concentration is greater than ten times the STLC, then it would be 
necessary to perform a waste extraction test to determine the soluble concentration. If the soluble concentration is greater 
than the STLC, the waste would be considered hazardous. The waste extraction test involves a ten times dilution of the 
sample; because of this, it would be impossible for the soluble concentration to exceed the STLC unless the total 
concentration exceeded ten times the STLC. 

California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Fact Sheet, Asbestos Handling, Transport and Disposal, October 1993. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.26 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



Vm. APPENDICES 



F. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 



Regulations (Division 4.5). The Department of Toxic Substances Control also has treatment standards 
for asbestos-containing wastes, which require submittal of a notification and certification form to the 
land disposal facility as well as wetting and containment of the asbestos-containing materials. 

The owner of properties where hazardous waste are produced or abatement would occur must have a 
Hazardous Waste Generator Number assigned by and Registered with, the California Department of 
Toxic Substances Control in Sacramento. The contractor and hauler of the material are required to file a 
Hazardous Waste Manifest, which details the hauling of the material from the site and the disposal of the 
material. 



Case No. 1999.377E 



F.27 

ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



CHAPTER IX 



EIR AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS; PERSONS CONSULTED 



EIR AUTHORS 



Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco 

1660 Mission Street, 5th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94103 

Environmental Review Officer: Hillary E. Gitelman 

EIR Coordinator: Lezley E. Buford 

EIR CONSULTANTS 

Environmental Science Associates 
225 Bush Street, Suite 1700 
San Francisco, California 94104 



President: 
Project Director: 
Project Manager: 
Participants: 



Gary W. Oates 

Daniel T. Wormhoudt, ASLA 
Karl F. Heisler 
Mark A. Hagmann 



Jyothi Iyer 
Anthony Padilla 
Mark Reich 

Orion Environmental Associates (Hydrology 

and Water Quality; Hazardous Materials) 
21 1 Sutter Street, Suite 605 
San Francisco, CA 94108 
Principal: Joyce Hsiao 
Staff: Mary Lucas McDonald 

Wilbur Smith Associates (Transportation) 

1 145 Market Street, 10th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Principal: William Hurrell 

Project Manager: Jose Farran 

Staff: Amy Marshall 

Cassidy, Shimko and Dawson (Legal Review) 
20 California Street, Suite 500 
San Francisco, CA 941 1 1 
Anna Shiniko 



Phillip Rieger, Ph.D. 
Thomas A. Roberts 
Jennifer Tasaki 
Robert G. Vranka, Ph.D 
JeffWehling 

Pittman & Hames Associates (Land Use) 
1375 Sutter Street, Suite 108 
San Francisco, CA 94109 
Principal: Donna Pittman 



Yuki Kawaguchi (Graphics) 
Cartographer 

211 Sutter Street, Suite 605 
San Francisco, CA 94108 



Case No. 1999.377E 



ESA 990267 



Soiithem Waterfront SEIR 



EX. Ere AUTHORS 



PROJECT SPONSORS 

Port of San Francisco 

Ferry Building, Suite 3100 

San Francisco, California 941 1 1 

Diane Oshima, Planner 

Dan Bell 



Industry Group Representative 

Mark Langowski 
DGL International 
422 Clipper ffill Road 
Danville, CA 94526 



Industry Group 

Bode Gravel Company 
2080 3'"^ St. #1 
San Francisco, CA 94980 
Dan Boardman 



British Pacific Aggregates 
1030 W.Georgia St., #716 
Vancouver, BC V6E2Y 
John Chambers 



Coach USA 

350 8"^ Street 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Ken Marciano 



ISG Resources, Inc. 
950 Andover Park east #24 
Tukwila, WA 98188 
Clint Kurtz 



Mission Valley Rock Company 
7999 Athenour Way 
Sunol, CA 94586 
Bill Howard 
Bob Bransted 



RMC Pacific Industries, Inc. 
PO Box 5252 
Pleasanton, CA 94566 
Harry Reppert 



Waste Resources Technologies 

A Waste Management Inc. Company 

172 98th Avenue 

Oakland, CA 94603 

Jack Isola 

Andrew Morris 



Case No. 1999.377E 



Southern Waterfront SEIR 



ESA 990267 



IX. Ere AUTHORS 



PERSONS CONSULTED 

PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Louise Anderson 
Carol Bach 
Dan Bell 
Diane Oshima 
Nick LaRocco 
Nieret Mizushima 
Roberta Schoenholz 
Jill Simpson 

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Adam Gubser, Department of Parking and Traffic 
Leslie Lundgren, Public Utilities Commission 

Phillip Tellis, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Street and Sewer Repair 
FEDERAL, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES 

Dick Butler, National Marine Fisheries Service 
Wayman Lee, Bay Area Air Quality Management District 
Dave Souloff, U.S. Coast Guard 

OTHERS 

Cameron Adams, Consultant and Minerals Appraiser 
Paul Basar, Lubrizol Corporation 
Frederick I. Cooper, Cooper Enviroiraiental 
Roger Peters, Commerce and Maritime Consultant 

Lawrence Thibeaux, Local 10, International Longshore and Warehouse Union 
Charles Tillotson, Marine Terminals Corporation 



Case No. 1999.377E 



ESA 990267 



Southern Waterfront SEIR